

































.<V ^ • 


* J 

' w 

'.I 

y^ '»•*** .6* ^3 '* 

(V o " » *f^_ 

/»U c ■* O 

- r, • * 


«i o 

- - viwvy * .V ^ * ws/m* ’ 

& ^ <XS o + z *^c/lr-&* 0 a- •' 

•■•* *•»!• A 0 ^ " 

^ V >*k*si'. ** \ww* *> 

- p ^ ^ «.vQ8&w\ ^ <?.' 1 

:JBI: W *' 




:• o > .« 

„ xaww * *° ^ -1 

o *W,* 0 % * ' 

- c> «o *• ** ^ <> 

• rt ^ A *fc % , v 

• % ** ♦ 

&: v** • 5 


*V V \* ^ •©■©V 

’* A>^ , ^<6 A 0 ^ 

^ ^ c°* ° 0 ^ 

* ■* ^ •» 

• 4 * «*^ 0 -a 5 *• • .0 T-f- • 

^ 4 . * >U\\V$> » (V A «, £ %J> „ 

<i» ■*. <l» O +^6/1}^ * r\ ^*. « 



r> • « - v ^ ^o. **,,,•* < 0 ^ sK *t, 

'+ > \> *' • o, % 0 ^ . • •, ^ *" 0 V s 

V- ** ** 4Va° ^ ,^° *vsifo£’ * «, v 

r: \j3m?: °wiM : <A. ^ 

* .V ->3Kr** ^ ^ ^yjvr* ^,V - 

O* 6 ..... V '”•* ^ , <jv '*••* ^ \ 

O .!*«► » ^ *P ,0 0°” * c 

’ ^0< * 

W —T'/s/nitJe 1 ■* y O-*. ”'W^IIXWNN^ w O o* 

O V ^ l£ * '"^“hAVv ^ 1 * \v" ^ 

V *"■••’f° V '*^* ^ 

:• % J? >£&*:. * v s .••»• % 

» r ' V-v \r> <$ 




. '<>•>* <0* *o» v?rf* A <\ ~f.>* ,(y ts *z, 








V ^ .A* v V' .'*° 

$ /, 



\pV 




0 &*+ 

\** . . „ °^ ^°° .. **>/*°^° V ^ °°^,0° 

v »: • ®- <^. 

* A^ * 

< . r^^'- rv :mm%\ 'vv . 

„ ,* ■V <* °;^vv <?> s t, •„■< 

s - '••*■’ A < v <V, '• •»* A °w. *'-’'•* .<\ ^ -o 

/,.. v®V v^V Vw a* 

> , ^ V •> ’ • ®" C\ aV * * VL% A , » 

v>> o, *‘a<$v^„* «?> A vv . v Art 

• %c. at *c(C\g£r/h, 0 cy ♦ C^im^ - ^tf A * \j\^ 

- W 'sMVAi ^ 

VA 






a «> : 

* ''Op* * 

“ V ^L - 



/ - " " A v 'Sf •'..*' A <*. 

%, A •^v"*' °o A ^ 

W •*»*• -o ^ .W*. A 0 



■ vSSCP; $++ - 

/ V^V \\ 

' r \•«* o. ^y % *i^Lr* > 





, > y 

* <L r O * ^CiA/^y 0 

0 " ° \V ^ * • I ’ * 


• % J ♦' 

: v-T • 




❖ V *V • 

* <j, v ^ 



• ^ - ~z> 

L ° < 1 ^ <• 

. A v-* : 

/ ^ - 

» 4 ’ / w * s A < 'o, 1 * A > "''T'A 4 ' A 

°o A ^ c° •''.-.-4T' ^°o jA % 

*b^ r-Jto -ov" > 

^ A ‘<•.,,•’‘,,0° ^ *“ 

. ^ A? % 

° A * 

”, ^ v • 

• A>*V = 

4 y > - 



f T- 

1 <> 


A 

r •* <(/ ^ 

, ■.„•'/ * ' 
^o< • 








K »* •« 
v - -o "'■>•*** A ^>. % 

• - A* .W%s* T- 

- *bv* :£m£t*' . 

• fl.l' o * -^- . 

o. * # i i* «0 

1^ .*• 




• T ^. AT « 

r y*\ v 



A o. > * <0 ^*, 

fl- _ S<>? 7 / 11 W > 7 ri* 

i ^ o r&p * ^ * 

°<p. *•'’'* ^* «$> * e « 0 0 A- ^ ' • I 1 

* * • c\ * !^L'» ^ „«• o, o q> 

^Va*. V ^ ^ A .vw. ^ 























A Discussion of the Papal Plan 
for Christian Unity. 


BY 


RANDOLPH HARRISON M C KIM, D. D. 


RECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE EPIPHANY, 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

AUTHOR OF “ CHRIST AND MODERN UNBELIEF,” * ( BREAD IN THE DESERT,” ETC. 


“ We have a Dictator before whom we must prostrate ourselves , 
and be sile7it, and bow our heads. This Dictator is History 

BISHOP STROSSMAYER. 

C H jiia xoii fiovrj alrfdy; he<pa?f 6 Aptarog — S. BASIL. 


WASHINGTON, D. C. 

GIBSON BROS., PRINTERS AND BOOKBINDERS. 


i 8 97 - 











Gift 

Vm, M. Pollooki 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


I. The Reunion of Christendom. 

II. Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on Christian Unity. 

III. An Open Letter to His Holiness Leo XIII. 

IV. Was St. Peter the Rock ? 

V. Preliminary Propositions Necessary to the Papal Claims. 

VI. St. Peter and the Power of the Keys. 

VII. The Primacy of St. Peter. 

VIII. The Primacy Anciently Conceded t) the Bishop of Rome. 

IX. The Development of the Papacy. 

X. The Forged Isi dorian Decretals. 

XI. Irenseus on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. 

XII. St. Cyprian on the Equality of Bishops. 

XIII. Witness of the Greek Church to the Independence of National 

Churches. 

XIV. The Church of Rome and Holy Scripture. 

XV. Gregory the Great on the title “ Universal Bishop.” 

XVI. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 

XVII. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility. 

XVIII. Papal Infallibility an Ignis Fatuus. 

XIX. Conclusion. 


























































PREFACE. 


Summoned by the kindly voice of Leo XIII to restore the 
unity of the Church by submission to the sovereign spirit¬ 
ual authority of the Roman Pontiff, and invited to make 
this submission in the name of Holy Scripture and of the 
Ancient Fathers of the Church, we answer by citing the 
Holy Father himself to appear at the Bar of History and 
justify the tremendous claim which he makes upon our 
consciences. 

This little volume is a candid attempt to exhibit in a brief 
space the verdict of History (“which is neither [Roman] 
Catholic nor Anglican”) upon all the essential points of 
doctrine and of jurisdiction contained in the Encyclical of 
Pope Leo on Christian Unity. 

Washington, D. C., 

Feast of the Annunciation, 1897. 



I. 


THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM. 

The reunion of Christendom is a consummation devoutly 
to be wished and prayed for, and for which Christian men 
and Christian churches ought to be prepared to make great 
concessions—to sacrifice everything but truth itself. But, 
as the Bishop of Edinburgh says in a recent charge to the 
Synod of Edinburgh (1895), it ought to be considered tha t 
“ unity in external communion without unity in fundamen¬ 
tal truth would be, even if it could be obtained, a curse and 
not a blessing.” Any proposition, therefore, looking to the 
reunion of the Anglican Church with the Church of Rome, 
as preparatory to the further and larger step of a complete 
reunion of Christendom, must deal first with the problem 
of unity in fundamental truth between these two great Com¬ 
munions. And when their respective doctrinal positions 
are examined it becomes at once apparent that they are so 
fundamentally at variance that without radical and far- 
reaching change on one side or the other reunion is impos¬ 
sible. 

I invite attention to the language of the learned prelate 
just referred to upon this subject: “Day by day,” he says, 
“we offer up the supplication . . . ‘that all who profess 

and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of 

7 


8 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


truth ’—that first, and then, possessing the truth , ‘ may 
hold the faith in Unity of Spirit, in the bond of peace, and 
in righteousness of life.’ What has been forgotten, or at 
least in practice minimized, on the side of those Anglicans 
to whom I have referred, is the paramount claim of Truth. 
What the Church of Rome holds to be truth, she never for 
one moment will compromise or explain away. As each 
new dogma has been added to her creed, it secures a place 
co-ordinate in certainty and authority for her own children 
with the doctrines that seem to us most clearly revealed in 
Holy Scripture. She teaches no doctrine that might be re¬ 
called, revised, modified, or explained away. For the pur¬ 
poses of diplomatic negotiations with other religious com¬ 
munities, she suffers from the very considerable inconve¬ 
nience of infallibility. If two parties differ, and one is, 
ex hypothesi, always right on the fundamental points in dis¬ 
pute, it is plain that there can be but one issue to any suc¬ 
cessful effort at making up the difference. Union with 
Rome means simply acceptance of her Creed and submis¬ 
sion to her authority. What some of us venture to call her 
‘ errors,’ are with her immutable and irreformable expres¬ 
sions of Divine Truth, having all the authority of God Him¬ 
self. It comes then simply to this: Can we surrender the 
principles for which the Anglican Church has steadily con¬ 
tended for the last three hundred and fifty years ? Or can 
we hold the doctrines of our Church, and, with a due re¬ 
gard for the ordinary and natural rules by which historical 
documents are interpreted, can we reconcile the sense of 


THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM. 


9 


our historical and authoritative standards of doctrine with 
the authoritative doctrine of the Church of Rome ? The 
only answer to each question is ,—It is impossible .” 

There could not be a better illustration of the truth of 
these remarks of Dr. Dowden than is found in the Encycli¬ 
cal of Leo XIII, on Christian Unity, issued in the early 
summer of 1896, to which the following “ Letter ” was a 
reply. This Pontiff has been widely extolled (and no 
doubt justly) for his enlightened liberality, and for the 
breadth of his sympathies, as well as for his sanctity. 
Yet when he undertakes to discuss Christian Unity, he 
holds a tone as uncompromising, as unbending, as abso¬ 
lute as Hildebrand himself. Underneath all his gracious 
and paternal phrases, there lurks unabated the imperial 
temper of the Pojdbs of the Middle Ages. He offers not a 
single concession. He makes not a single advance. He 
abates not a jot or tittle of the claims of his predecessors. 
He has one short and simple solution of the problem 
presented by Christian Unity,—Let the whole Christian 
world—all churches, communions, sects, make their sub¬ 
mission to the Roman Pontiff. Only an absolute sur¬ 
render to Rome can heal the divisions of Christendom. 
Two things, the Encyclical declares, are indispensably 
necessary. First, we must accept every article of faith, 
and point of doctrine, which has been authoritatively pro¬ 
claimed and established by the Roman Church; and, 
second, we must accept the jurisdiction, the supremacy, 
the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. 


10 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY . 


Let us ask, then, What does the Roman Church require 
us to believe ? It would lead us too far to reply to this ques¬ 
tion exhaustively. It will be enough to note that besides 
the three Creeds accepted by the Church of England, she 
requires us to accept (1) the Creed of Pius IV set forth A. D. 
1564; (2) the definitions of the (Ecumenical Councils; 
(3) all ex cathedra doctrinal definitions of the Popes in all 
the ages, e. g ., the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception 
of the Blessed Virgin promulgated in the year 1854 by Pius 
IX. Now let us suppose that we could accept all the doc¬ 
trines and articles of faith pertaining to the Christian Re¬ 
ligion, just enumerated, it would avail us nothing unless w r e 
also submitted to the jurisdiction and supremacy of the 
Bishop of Rome.* “ Schism ” from the Pope, Leo tells us, 
places us “ outside the One Fold.” “ Bishops are deprived 
of the right and power of ruling if they deliberately 
secede from Peter and his successors.” “ The Episcopate 
order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as 
Christ commanded, if it is subject to and obeys Peter; 
otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly 
crowd.” It is not enough that the head of the Church 
“ should have been charged merely with the office of 
superintendent, or should have been invested solely with 
the power of direction, but it is absolutely necessary that 

* ‘ ‘ The very nature of divine faith makes it impossible that we can 
reject even one point of direct teaching (by the authoritative magis- 
terium of the Church), as this is practically rejecting the authority of 
God Himself.”—Encyclical on Christian Unity. 


THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM. 


11 


he should have received real and sovereign authority which 
the whole community is bound to obey”* I italicize these 
last words in order to call attention to the distinct asser¬ 
tion which they make that absolute power is vested in the 
Pope. Innocent III himself could not have more dis¬ 
tinctly formulated the theory of an absolute ecclesiastical 
despotism lodged in the hands of the Eoman Pontiffs. 
Pope Boniface VIII asserted no more when he declared 
officially (in his Bull TJnam Sanctam ), “We declare, assert, 
and define, that for every human creature it is altogether 
necessary to salvation that he be subject to the Roman 
Pontiff”! Bid Pope Gregory VII do more than draw out 
a corollary from the same fundamental proposition when 
he affirmed that “ When men proudly refuse to obey 
the Apostolic Chair (of Peter) they incur the guilt of 
idolatry,” (“cum enim obedire apostolicae sedi superbe 
contemnunt, scelus idolatrise . . . incurrumt ”) ? And did 
not Bellarmin build on the same foundation when he made 
the amazing and blasphemous assertion that “ if the Pope 
should err by enjoining vices and prohibiting virtues, the 
Church would be bound to believe vices to be good, and 


* The Encyclical. 

t The French novelist who has lately given the world a truly re¬ 
markable picture of modern Rome, was justified, it would appear, in 
putting the following words into the mouth of Pope Leo XIII: “Ah ! 
le Schisme, ah! le Schisme, mon fils, c’est le crime sans pardon, c’est 
l’assassinat du vrai Dieu, la bete de tentation immonde, suscitee 
par l’Enfer, pour la perte des fideles.” 


12 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY . 

virtues to be bad, unless she would sin against con¬ 
science ” ? * 

In making these strictures upon the real purport of 
the Encyclical, we do not wish or intend to impeach the 
sincerity of the venerable Pontiff, or to question or doubt 
his genuine zeal for the reunion of Christendom. Rather 
would we draw attention to the inexorable logic of the 
iron system which the Papacy incarnates. The gentle¬ 
ness and charity and sympathy and zeal of Leo XIII only 
serve as a foil to the sharp two-edged sword which as Pope 
he is compelled to wield. The man, good and kind and 
liberal-minded as he is, is helplessly in the grip of the ab¬ 
solutism of which he is the official representative. 

Here, however, is the feature of the Encyclical which de¬ 
serves especial note, and which called forth the Letter of 
reply which follows. His Holiness undertakes to reason 
with “ the peoples of the Christian World,” and to set be¬ 
fore them somewhat at length the grounds in Scripture 
and the ancient Fathers upon which the proud edifice of 
Roman Ecclesiastical Imperialism professes to rear itself. 
Thus the document refers the great matters at issue to the 
arbitrament of Holy Scripture and Primitive Antiquity, 
and, in effect, invites all who dissent from Rome to exercise 
their private judgment in seeking a true conclusion. The 
present writer felt that the Encyclical thus constituted a 

* “Si autem Papa erraret pracipiendo vitia, velprohibendo virtutes, 
teneretur Ecclesia credere viita esse bona, et virtutes malas, nisi 
vellet contra conscientiam peccare.” 


THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM. 


13 


challenge, which could not properly be declined, to meet 
the illustrious apologist of the Papal system upon ground 
which we as Anglicans have ever claimed as our own. 

The following publication has for its object the justifica¬ 
tion of the assertions made in my open Letter of Reply to 
Pope Leo XIII, published in the Washington Host of 
July 27th, 1896, especially by giving the passages from the 
Fathers alluded to therein. 

I have quoted freely from the Encyclical of the “ Holy 
Catholic and Apostolical Orthodox Church of the East ” in 
reply to a previous Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Re¬ 
union, of November 30th, 1894, in order to draw attention 
to the important and impressive fact that on all the great 
questions at issue between the Anglican Communion and 
the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, with its one hun¬ 
dred millions of adherents, stands with us. As to Purga¬ 
tory, the Immaculate Conception, Mariolatry, Denial of the 
Cup to the Laity, the Primacy of Peter, the ancient Pri¬ 
macy of the Bishop of Rome, the claims of Papal Author¬ 
ity, of Temporal Pow r er, of Infallibility, she agrees with 
us. She interprets the Fathers, and the decrees and 
Canons of the Ancient Councils just as we do, upon all 
these points. She finds the Roman system made up of in¬ 
novations,—modern, not ancient; provincial, not catholic, — 
built not upon the Holy Scriptures, not upon the ancient 
Fathers, not upon the ancient Councils, but upon perver¬ 
sions and usurpations, upon spurious Patristic passages, 
upon the False Clementines, upon the forged Decretals of 


14 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Isidore, upon the unauthentic Apostolical Constitutions. 
This is her language: “ The orthodox Church of Christ is 
ever ready to receive every proposal of reunion, if only the 
Bishop of Rome shakes off, once and for all time, the many 
and divers innovations which, contrary to the Gospel, have 
been stealthily introduced into the Church, and have 
caused the grievous division of the churches of the East 
and the West; and if only he returns to the ground of the 
Seven QEcumenical Councils, which were held under the 
guidance of the Holy Spirit by the representatives of all 
the Churches of God, in order to define the right teaching 
of faith, as against those that tended to heresy.” 


II. 


POPE LEO’S ENCYCLICAL ON CHRISTIAN UNITY. 

On the 29th of June, 1896, the following report of the 
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII was given to the press: 

Baltimore, Md., June 29. 

Cardinal Gibbons has received from Rome advance sheets of Pope 
Leo XIII’s Encyclical on the union of the Christian churches. It is 
addressed to all Bishops in communion with the Holy See, and is in 
part as follows: 

“ The Holy Father, intent upon the work of bringing all to the one 
fold of Christ, considers that it would conduce to the end were he to 
set before the peoples of the Christian world the ideal and exemplar of 
the church as divinely constituted, to which church all are bound by 
God’s command to belong. 

“In accordance with His usual providence, God makes use of hu¬ 
man instruments to effect the sanctification and salvation of men. To 
this end not only did He take upon Himself human nature, but in 
order to perpetuate His mission the Son of God chose apostles and 
disciples, whom He had trained, that they might faithfully hand down 
His teaching and commands to those who desired the blessing He had 
purchased for mankind by His death. 

“ In commanding the apostles and their successors to the end of 
time to teach and rule the nations He ordered the nations to accept 
and obey their authority. 

“ In Scripture, the church is called a body, and the body of Christ. 
It is visible as being a living and organized society, and is animated 
by the invisible vital principle of supernatural life. Those, therefore, 
who either deny that Christ’s church is a visible body or refuse to 
allow that it has ‘ the perennial communication of the gifts of divine 
grace, are equally in a grievous and pernicious error.’ The ‘ connec¬ 
tion and union of both elements is absolutely necessary to the true 

15 


16 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human na¬ 
ture,’ and as this is the essential constitution of the church according 
to God’s will, who also determined that it was to last to the end of 
time, this it must possess at the present day. 

The Mission of Christ. 

“ It is obviously of the first importance to determine what Christ 
wished His church to be, and what in fact He made it. According to 
this criterion, it is the unity of the Christian church which must neces¬ 
sarily be considered, for it is certain that when ‘ He founded it He 
wished it to be one.’ The mission of Christ was to save not some na¬ 
tions or peoples only, but the whole human race, without distinction 
of time or place. Hence, as the mission of His church was to hand 
down through every age the blessing of this salvation by the will of 
its founder, it is necessary that this church should be one in all lands 
and at all times. 

“A church which should embrace all men everywhere and at all 
times was clearly foretold by the prophet Isaiah, and was typified as 
our Lord’s mystical body—a body united to Himself as head; a mystical 
body, the members of which, if separated one from the other, ‘ can¬ 
not be united with one and the same head.’ And so another head like 
to Christ—that is, another Christ—must be invented if besides the 
one church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. 

“ Furthermore, ‘ He who made this one church also gave it unity— 
that is, He made it such that all who so belong to it must be united by 
the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body.’ 
And he willed that this unity among his followers should be so per¬ 
fect * that it might in some measure shadow forth the union between 
Himself and His father.’ 

Unity of Faith Essential. 

“As a necessary consequence ‘ in His divine wisdom He ordained in 
His church unity of faith—a virtue which is the first of those bonds 
which unite man to God and whence we receive the name of the faith¬ 
ful.’ The nature of this unity of faith must and can be ascertained 
from the commands and teaching of Christ Himself. The mere pos¬ 
session of the Scriptures is not sufficient to insure unity of belief, 


LEO'S ENCYCLICAL ON CHRISTIAN UNITY. 17 


* not merely because of the nature of the doctrine itself and the mys¬ 
teries it involves but also because of the divergent tendencies of the 
human mind and the disturbing element of conflicting passions.’ 

“ It was necessary ‘ that there should be another principle ’ to insure 
union of minds in the Christian Church, and it is consequently proper 
to inquire which of the many means by which Christ, our Lord, could 
have secured this unity He, in fact, adopted. It is the duty of all 
followers of Christ, not merely to accept His doctrine generally, ‘ but 
to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is 
unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single 
point.’ 

“ Christ endowed His apostles with authority like to His own, and 
promised that the spirit of truth should direct them and remain with 
them forever, and because of this commission it is no more allowable 
to repudiate one iota of the apostles’ teaching than to reject any point 
of the doctrine of Christ Himself. This apostolic mission was intended 
for the salvation of the whole human race, and consequently must 
last to the end of time. 

Authority of the Church. 

“ The magisterium instituted by Christ in His church was by God’s 
will perpetuated in the successors appointed by the apostles, and in 
like manner the duty of accepting and professing all that is thus 
taught is also perpetual and immutable. There is nothing which the 
church founded on these principles has been more careful to guard 
than the integrity of the faith. The fathers of the church are unan¬ 
imous in considering as outside the Catholic communion any one who 
in the least degree deviates from even one point of the doctrine pro¬ 
posed by the authoritative magisterium of the church. 

“ Wherefore Christ instituted in the church a living, authoritative 
and lasting magisterium. He willed and commanded under the grav¬ 
est penalties that its teachings should be received as if they were His 
own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this 
teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revela¬ 
tion, it must be believed by every one as true. The very nature of 
divine faith makes it impossible that we can reject even one point of 
direct teaching, as this is practically rejecting the authority of God 
Himself. 


18 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


“ Christ commanded ‘ all men present and future to follow Him as 
their leader and Saviour, and thus not merely as individuals, but as 
forming a society, organized and united in mind. He established in 
the church all those principles which necessarily tend to make organ¬ 
ized human societies and through which they attain the perfection 
proper to each.’ That is, in the church founded by Christ, ‘all who 
wished to be the sons of God by adoption might attain to the perfec¬ 
tion demanded by their high calling and might obtain salvation.’ 

“ The church is ‘ man’s guide to whatever pertains to heaven. Thi3 
is the office appointed to it by God that it may watch over and may 
order all that concerns religion, and may, without let or hindrance, 
exercise, according to its judgment, its charge over Christianity. 
Wherefore they who pretend that the church has any wish to inter¬ 
fere in civil matters, or to infringe upon the rights of the state, either 
know it not or wickedly calumniate it.’ 

Chkist’s Vicegerent on Earth. 

“Besides being the guardian of the faith, the church must afford 
the means of obtaining the salvation purchased by Christ. The dis¬ 
pensation of the divine ministries was not granted by God indiscrim¬ 
inately to all Christians, but to the apostles and their successors, and 
in this way, according to God’s providence, a duly constituted society 
‘ was formed out of the divided multitudes of people, one in faith, 
one in end, one in the participation of the means adapted to the at¬ 
tainment of the end, and one as subject to one and the same author¬ 
ity.’ 

“ As ‘ no true and perfect human society can be conceived which 
is not governed by some supreme authority, ’ so Christ, of necessity, 
gave to His church a supreme authority to which all Christians must 
be obedient. For the preservation of unity, there must be unity of 
government jure divino, and men may be placed outside the one fold 
by schism as well as by heresy. 

“ The nature of this supreme authority can be ascertained from the 
positive and evident will of Christ in the matter. As He willed that 
His kingdom should be visible, Christ was obliged to designate a vice¬ 
gerent on earth in the person of St. Peter. He also determined that 
the authority given him for the salvation of mankind in perpetuity 
should be inherited by St. Peter’s successors. 


LEO'S ENCYCLICAL ON CHRISTIAN UNITY. 19 


“ It cannot be doubted from the words of Holy Writ that the church, 
by the will of God, rests on St. Peter, as a building on its foundation. 
St. Peter could not fulfill this duty without the power of command¬ 
ing, forbidding, judging, which is properly called ‘ jurisdiction.’ It 
is by the power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are 
held together—a primacy of honor, and the shadowy right of giving 
advice and admonition, which is called direction, could never give 
unity or strength to any society of men. 

St. Peter’s Power Supreme. 

“ The metaphorical expressions of the ‘ keys ’ and of 4 binding and 
loosing ’ indicate 4 the power of making laws, of judging and of pun¬ 
ishing—a power which our Lord declares to be of such amplitude and 
force that God would ratify whatever is decreed by it.’ Thus the 
power of St. Peter is supreme, and absolutely independent, so that 
having no other power upon earth as its superior it embraces the 
whole church and all things committed to the church. 

“ As this governing authority belongs to the constitution and for¬ 
mation of the church as the very principle of unity and stability, it 
was clearly intended to pass to St. Peter’s successors from one to 
another. Consequently, the pontiffs who succeed him in the Roman 
Episcopate receive the supreme power in the church jure divino, and 
this is declared fully by general councils, and is acknowledged by the 
consent of antiquity. 

44 But though the authority of St. Peter and his successors is plenary 
and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the only authority. 

“ The Bishops, who are the successors of the apostles, inherit their 
ordinary power, and the 4 Episcopal order necessarily belongs to the 
essential constitution of the church.’ They are consequently not to 
be regarded as mere vicars of the Roman pontiffs, since 4 they exercise 
a power which is really their own, and are most truly called the ordi¬ 
nary pastors of the people over whom they rule.’ 

Episcopal Rights Lost by Secession. 

44 For the preservation of unity in the Christian Church, it is above 
all things necessary that there should be union between the Roman 
pontiff, the one successor to St. Peter, and the Bishops, the many 


20 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


successors of the apostolic college. 1 It is necessary to bear in mind 
that no prerogative was confessed in the apostles in which St. Peter 
did not participate, but that many were bestowed upon St. Peter apart 
from the apostles.’ He alone was designated by Christ as the founda¬ 
tion of His church. To him He gave the power of forgiving and 
retaining, and to him alone was given the authority to feed. From 
this it follows ‘ that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of 
ruling if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors, 
because by this secession they are separated from the foundation on 
which the whole edifice rested.’ 

“As the divine founder of the church decreed that His church 
should be one in faith, in government, and communion, so He chose 
Peter and his successors as the principal, and, as it were, the center 
of this unity. 

“ The episcopate order is rightly judged to be in communion with 
Peter, as Christ commanded, if it is subject to and obeys Peter; other¬ 
wise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. For the 
due preservation of unity of the faith, it is not sufficient ‘ that the 
head should have been charged merely with the office of superinten¬ 
dent or should have been invested solely with the power of direction, 
but it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and 
sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey.’ 

Authority of Bishops Limited. 

“ It is opposed to the truth, and is in evident contradiction with 
the divine constitution of the church to hold that while a Bishop is 
individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman pontiffs, the 
Bishops, taken collectively, are not so bound. For it is the nature and 
essence of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and 
to give stability to it rather than that of each component part. It 
was through the strength and solidity of the foundation that Christ 
promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against His church— 
a promise to be understood of the church as a whole, and not of any 
certain portions of it. 

“ Moreover, he who is set over the whole flock must have authority 
not only over the sheep dispersed throughout the church, but also 
when they are assembled together. Do all the sheep gathered to¬ 
gether rule and guide the shepherd? Do the successors of the 


LEO'S ENCYCLICAL ON CHRISTIAN UNITY. 21 


apostles assembled together constitute the foundation on which the 
successor of St. Peter rests in order to derive therefrom strength and 
stability ? 

“ The Popes have ever unquestionably exercised the office of ratify¬ 
ing or rejecting the decrees of councils. Leo the Great rescinded 
the acts of Conciliabulum of Ephesus. Damasus rejected those of 
Rimini, and Adrian I those of Constantinople. The twenty-eighth 
canon of the council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the 
assent and approval of the apostolic see, is admitted by all to be 
worthless. 

“Holy writ attests that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were 
given to Peter alone, and that the promise of binding and loosing was 
granted to the apostles and to Peter, but there is nothing to show 
that the apostles received supreme power without Peter or against 
Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. 
Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican council as to the nature and 
authority of the primacy of the Roman pontiff, no newly conceived 
opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of all ages.” 


4 


III. 


AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS LEO XIII. 

To His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII: 

Revered Pontiff : Inasmuch as your recent encyclical on 
Christian unity, although formally addressed only “ to the 
Bishops in communion with the Holy See,” does, in fact, 
make argument and appeal “ to the peoples of the Chris¬ 
tian world,” it will not, I trust, appear improper or pre¬ 
sumptuous if I, being only an humble and obscure priest 
in the Church of God, venture to lay before your holiness 
some of the difficulties which are widely felt in acceding to 
the proposal and plan you have been pleased to set forth 
in order to effectuate Christian unity. 

The fact that I am of the Anglican communion, and 
therefore a Protestant, makes it not less, but more, becom¬ 
ing that I should make respectful reply, since it is espe¬ 
cially on behalf of the Protestant peoples that your holi¬ 
ness has been at the pains to prepare this encyclical with 
a view to “bringing all to the one fold of Christ.” It 
would, indeed, appear churlish and discourteous if, when 
one occupying so exalted a station as the pontiff of the 
most numerous church on earth had condescended to 
reason with the great communions of Christians who are 

not of his flock upon so momentous a theme as Christian 

23 


24 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


unity, there should be no reason publicly given for not 
embracing his overtures. Such explanation is due to the 
gracious act of the illustrious pontiff—still more due to 
ourselves and to the public in the face of a proposition of 
such grave importance. 

Before attempting to state the difficulties which un¬ 
happily appear to inexorably forbid the cordial acceptance 
of the plan which your holiness proposes to heal the wounds 
in the body of Christ—if I may be allowed to speak as if 
we, too, did actually belong to His body—let me express 
my profound and unfeigned thanks that the momentous 
issues involved in this great contention are by your holi¬ 
ness referred to the arbitrament of reason. In reasoning 
with us you invite us to exercise our reason. In outliniDg 
for our consideration the grounds upon which the enor¬ 
mous claims of the Homan See are based, you invite us to 
weigh the evidence, to scrutinize the authorities cited; in 
short, to exercise our private judgment upon the tremen¬ 
dous issue whether or not the Roman Church is the one, 
holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and whether in that 
Church the supreme power is lodged in the pontiff. For 
this recognition of the function of reason and the right 
and duty of private judgment we, as Protestants, are pro¬ 
foundly grateful. We understand, of course, that you 
confine the exercise of this right to the scrutiny of cre¬ 
dentials of the Roman Church and of the authority and 
infallibility of her pontiff, and that once convinced that 
she is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and 


AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS. 


25 


that her pontiffs are supreme and infallible, then the exer¬ 
cise of reason and private judgment is, in your view, at an 
end, and we must accept, without question or doubt, what¬ 
ever is defined or decided by the Holy See. Or, to state 
it in the clear and unambiguous language of the encyclical, 
“ as often as it is declared, on the authority of this teach¬ 
ing, that this or that is contained in the deposit of the 
divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.” 
This, I repeat, we clearly understand, but we gratefully 
recognize the liberty which you concede us to submit the 
credentials of the Church and of the pontiff to the bar of 
reason, untrammeled by authority, and summoning Scrip¬ 
ture and history as witnesses in determining the issue. 

But let me proceed, without further preface, to state 
some of the difficulties we find in the w r ay of accepting the 
proposals of the encyclical. 

(1) The first concerns “the integrity of the faith,” which 
your holiness urges upon our consideration as a matter of 
vital importance. Our difficulty is that “the faith” as 
presented for our acceptance by the Roman Church, is in 
various points different from, and contradictory to, “ the 
faith ” as contained in the Holy Scriptures and professed 
by the ancient fathers of the Catholic Church. Yet the 
encyclical assures us that “ the apostles and disciples ” 
were commissioned by Christ to “ faithfully hand down His 
teaching,” and invites us to test the claims of the Church 
and its doctrines by the Scriptures and the ancient fathers. 
We are thus placed in a dilemma. We must either repu- 


26 


LEO XIII AT TEE BAR OF HISTORY. 


diate these doctrines of the faith of the Roman Church, 
as contrary to the Scripture and the ancient fathers of the 
Church, or in accepting the former we must repudiate the 
latter, and in so doing set ourselves against the decree of 
the Holy Council of Trent, which declared the Scriptures 
to be the inspired and infallible Word of God. 

In illustration of my meaning I will mention but one out 
of many doctrines that are open to the difficulty just al¬ 
leged. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the 
Blessed Virgin, which was proclaimed by your revered 
predecessor, Pius IX, in the year 1854, and has since been 
an article of the Roman faith, binding on all her children, 
is one which we cannot discover any hint of in the Bible, 
which is not alluded to in any of the ancient creeds, and 
which is explicitly or implicitly denied by several of the 
greatest of the fathers, as St. Augustine and St. Bernard, 
and by the greatest of Roman Catholic divines, St. Thomas 
Aquinas, as well as by several of the Popes themselves. In 
the light of this fact, how could we accept the doctrine of 
the Immaculate Conception and at the same time profess the 
creed of Pope Pius IV (which as good Catholics we would 
be required to do), since it binds us never “ to take or inter¬ 
pret the Scriptures otherwise than according to the unani¬ 
mous consent of the fathers ” ? 

Your holiness will surely sympathize with the difficulty 
which is raised by these two contradictory requirements. 

(2) Another very serious difficulty which rises up in the 
way of our accepting the terms of Christian unity proposed 


AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS. 


27 


by the encyclical, relates to the privilege of Peter and the 
alleged transmission of the same to his alleged successors— 
the Homan pontiffs. It is declared that “ it cannot be 
doubted from the words of Holy Writ that the Church, by 
the will of God, rests on St. Peter as a building on the 
foundation.” But where in Holy Writ is there any such 
statement ? When our Lord said, “ On this rock I will 
build my Church,” can we possibly believe that He referred 
to St. Peter in the face of the fact that in the Old Testa¬ 
ment the title of Bock is reserved to God, the Father, and 
in the New Testament to Christ Himself? To do so would 
be to contradict the solemn declaration of the holy apostle, 
St. Paul. “ Other foundation can no man lay than that is 
laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Should we not, then, rather 
interpret as St. Chrysostom does, and as many other 
ancient fathers do, “ On this rock I will build my Church, 
that is, on the faith of his confession,” viz., “ Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God.” To build on that faith 
is to build on Christ. Again, the encyclical alleges that 
“ many prerogatives were bestowed upon St. Peter, apart 
from the apostles,” and among these is mentioned “ the 
power of forgiving and retaining.” But with the greatest 
deference, may we venture to point out to your holiness, 
that this power of “ forgiving and retaining ” was bestowed 
upon all the apostles indiscriminately? (See St. John 
xx.) And further, may we respectfully invite attention to 
the extraordinary fact that there is not a jot or tittle of 
evidence in the entire New Testament that St. Peter ever 


28 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


pretended to, or ever exercised, the supreme powers and 
prerogatives which it is claimed were conferred upon him. 

If St. Peter was the vicegerent of Christ, why did St. 
Paul presume to rebuke him, as he tells us he did? (Gal. 
ii. 11.) If he was supreme over the rest of the apostles 
why did not he, rather than St. James, preside in the first 
general council ? (Acts xv.) And why did not he pro¬ 
nounce and promulgate the sentence of the council ? Again, 
if St. Peter was the head ruler of the Church, w T hy was he 
restricted to the apostleship of the circumcision—that is, 
of the Jews? (Gal. ii. 7, 8.) And why did St. Paul as¬ 
sume to teach and direct the Church in Rome itself ? Why, 
too, does St. Paul claim equality with “ the very chiefest 
of the apostles ” ? And then why does not St. Peter, in his 
epistles, make any allusion whatever to his possessing or 
exercising supreme authority in the Church ? But is not 
the question closed by our blessed Lord’s words, in which 
He forbade any distinction of rank among His apostles ? 
(Luke xxii. 24-26.) 

Exercising our private judgment, then, as your holiness 
invites us to do on the question of the primacy and su¬ 
premacy of St. Peter over the Church, we are compelled to 
conclude that, so far as Holy Scripture is concerned, the 
doctrine you lay down seems to be destitute of any founda¬ 
tion, and to be, moreover, completely contradictory to the 
actual facts of the ecclesiastical government of the Church, 
as reflected in the New Testament. 

It is true that our Lord used words to St. Peter that he 


AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS. 


29 


used to none other of His apostles.* They were, “ I will 
give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” But this 
promise was abundantly fulfilled in the fact that to St. 
Peter, brave and devoted leader that he was, was given the 
great and enviable privilege of first opening the doors of 
the Christian Church to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, 
and to the Gentiles in the case of Cornelius and his 
friends at a later period. 

We observe that such a privilege was not in the nature 
of things transmissible to his successors; nor is there a 
syllable in the New Testament that indicates that what¬ 
ever peculiar powers and privileges may have been his, he 
was to transmit them to those who succeeded him. Thus 
a great and insurmountable objection lies in the way of 
our submitting to the Boman pontiff as the alleged succes¬ 
sor of St. Peter. If we open our Bibles, as your holiness 
invites us to do, we find that there is no foundation in 
their pages for the claims set up either for St. Peter or his 
successors. Doubtless we will be told that we do not 
rightly interpret the Holy Scriptures upon this point of 
the privilege of Peter and his successors. But, though we 
are ready to acknowledge our fallibility as interpreters of 
Holy Writ, observe, we pray, the embarrassment of our posi¬ 
tion. The creed of Pope Pius IY, as above remarked, binds 
all good Boman Catholics “ never to interpret the Scriptures 
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the 
fathers.” But when we turn to the writings of the fathers 
we do not find that they gave their “ unanimous consent 
* See, however, this fact explained below, pp. 55 aeq. 


30 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


to the interpretation of Holy Writ propounded by your 
holiness in the encyclical upon this question. Far, indeed, 
from it. We find that the early fathers generally assert 
the equality of all bishops. In particular, St. Cyprian de¬ 
clares that “ the other apostles were, indeed, that which 
Peter was, endowed with equal consortship of honor and 
power,” St. Chrysostom that St. Paul was “equal in 
honor” with St. Peter, St. Cyril that St. Peter and St. 
John were “equal in honor to one another.” St. Jerome, 
Dionysius, and Isidore affirm the same. As regards our 
Lord’s words to blessed Peter, there appears great differ¬ 
ence among the ancient fathers as to their interpretation, 
and the weight of opinion is by no means with that given 
by your holiness. Indeed, the great divines of the Roman 
Church, the schoolmen and the canonists do not agree in 
their exposition. That great and good Pope, Gregory the 
Great, differs from your holiness and agrees with St. 
Chrysostom. Here are his words: “ Inver a fide persistite, 
et vitam vestram in petra ccclesiae , hoc est in confessione 
B. Petri Apostolorum principis, solidate .”* If, then, we 
are so unfortunate as not to be able to see in that famous pas¬ 
sage (St. Matt, xvi) the proof that our Lord has built His 
Church “ on Peter, as a building on its foundation,” w r e de¬ 
rive consolation from finding ourselves in agreement with 
one of the best and most illustrious of the Popes, the 
great Gregory. 

As regards the power of the keys, alleged by your holi¬ 
ness as given to St. Peter alone, we cannot find here either 
* Ep. Lib. iv. 38, p. 718. 


AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS. 


31 


“ unanimous consent ” on the part of the ancient fathers. 
St. Augustine holds this power to be identical with the 
power of “ binding and loosing sins,” which was undoubt¬ 
edly given to all the apostles (John xx.) Whatever its 
origin, St. Jerome, Theophylact, and St. Chrysostom (not 
to name others) affirm that all the apostles received the 
same power. 

As regards the commission to “feed” Christ’s sheep, 
which the encyclical declares was given to Peter alone, 
there is no “ unanimous consent ” of the fathers upon this 
interpretation. Thus St. Cyril interprets them as a re¬ 
newal of the former grant of apostleship, forfeited by his 
denial of the Lord. And St. Augustine, “ When it is said 
to Peter, it is said to all, feed my sheep.” In the same 
sense teach St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and St. Chrysostom. 
How great and insuperable then is the difficulty of accept¬ 
ing the proposal for unity which your holiness puts forth 
in this encyclical! You call upon us to acknowledge the 
absolute supremacy of the Roman pontiff over our faith, 
over our consciences, over our conduct. Whatever doc¬ 
trine he may from time to time declare “ is contained in 
the deposit of revelation, it must be believed by every one 
as true.” Whatever he may disallow must be refused, 
though all the bishops in the whole world agree in ordain¬ 
ing it. Whatever may be the accuracy and orthodoxy of 
our faith—though we should hold every doctrine, great 
and small, fully and heartily—we shall be nevertheless 
“placed outside the one fold,” unless we submit to the 
authority of the Bishop of Borne. 


32 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


In support of so tremendous a claim, so boundless an 
authority, you refer us to Holy Scripture and to the an¬ 
cient fathers. Accordingly, we reverently open the sacred 
volume, remembering blessed Peter’s solemn caution 
against “wresting the Scriptures” to our “perdition.” 
But we can find no support, but the contrary, in the vol¬ 
ume of inspiration, for the awful powers and prerogatives 
which the Boman pontiffs claim. We are, therefore, shut 
up to the dilemma, from which we find no escape, either 
to reject these claims, on pain of the anathema of the Holy 
See, or to accept them against reason, against Scripture, 
against history, and on pain of blessed Peter’s anathema 
upon those who “wrest the Scriptures” to “their own 
perdition.” Should any of us, however, drawn by desire 
to be at unity with your holiness and the great commun¬ 
ion, of which you are the head, incline to take the awful 
risk of surrendering our reason and our faith to the do¬ 
minion of the Holy See contrary to the plain sense of 
Holy Scripture, we should find ourselves forsworn before 
God, because, when we should have declared, “Neither 
will I ever take or interpret the Scriptures otherwise than 
according to the unanimous consent of the fathers ” (creed 
of Pius IY), we should have actually submitted to an inter¬ 
pretation of the Scriptures which has no claim whatever to 
be supported by the “ unanimous consent of the fathers.” 

But if we refuse to place ourselves in such a position, 
and choose, rather, to listen to the voice of Holy Scripture, 
as we understand it, and as so many of the best and holiest 


AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS. 


33 


of the fathers have understood it, and so reject the pro¬ 
posals of the encyclical, believing that unity would be too 
dearly purchased at the cost of the approval of our own 
consciences and the stultification of our reason, and the ex¬ 
tinguishment of the light of history, we may at least reflect 
that in so doing we are at one with that good man, Pope 
Gregory the Great. Here are his words, addressed to the 
Bishop of Constantinople: “ What wilt thou say to Christ 
the Head of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last 
judgment, who, by the appellation of ‘Universal’ (Bishop), 
dost endeavor to subject all His members to thee ? Whom, 
I pray, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, 
but him who, despising the legions of angels constituted in 
fellowship with him, did endeavor to break forth unto the 
top of singularity, that he might both be subject to none, 
and alone be over all ? ” And again St. Gregory says: “ I 
confidently say that whoever doth call himself universal 
bishop, or desireth to be so called, doth, in his elation, fore¬ 
run Antichrist, because he proudly doth set himself before 
the rest.” 

We cannot but ask, What would Pope Gregory the Great 
hftve said to the titles now assumed by his successors, such 
as “ the vicegerent of God,” “ the vicar of Christ on earth,” 
whose “ teachings should be received as if they were His 
own,” and whom the whole episcopate must be “ subject 
to” on pain of being considered “a lawless and disorderly 
crowd ” ? 


34 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


3. Several other difficulties there are which I have only 
space to mention without enlarging upon. Why is it that, 
if this tremendous power was by Christ lodged with St. 
Peter and his successors, it was not so plainly and clearly 
stated that there could be no question about His meaning 
among honest Christians? Why did not the apostles 
declare it and expound it, being a doctrine second to none 
in importance? Why did not St. Peter himself allude to 
it in his epistles ? Why is it not embodied in the Catholic 
creeds of the church ? Why is it not explained or alluded 
to in any of the decrees of the general councils of the 
church? Why do none of the great doctors and divines 
of the church, in all their extensive and elaborate treatises 
on divinity and on the faith of the church, explain and 
defend it? Why did not the Popes, if they possessed 
these sovereign powers, not summon one of the six gen¬ 
eral councils of the church? Why did some of those 
councils ignore or decree contrary to the wishes of the 
Pope? Why was the papal authority never synodically 
defined until the Lateran Synod in the year 1215 ? Why 
was his infallibility, (a doctrine of such overshadowing im¬ 
portance,) never defined and promulgated until the Vatican 
Council of 1870? And why was there so much uncer¬ 
tainty on the subject prior to that council that a popular 
controversial catechism, approved and sanctioned by 
Bishops and an Archbishop, even taught that it was “ a 
Protestant invention ” to say that Catholics must believe 
the infallibility of the Pope ? 


an open letter to his holiness. 


35 


4. But even these difficulties are not all. Could they be 
each one removed out of the way we should still remain in 
the greatest perplexity upon several points. 

For example: We should have accepted the Boman pon¬ 
tiff as supreme, sovereign, and infallible, and yet we could 
not deny that various Popes have shown themselves any¬ 
thing but infallible in matters of faith. History would 
still testify that Pope Liberius denied the divinity of 
Christ and anathematized St. Athanasius, the champion 
of orthodoxy; that Pope Honorius was condemned by a 
general council as a heretic, and was proclaimed by Pope 
Leo II to be under the sentence of “ eternal condemna¬ 
tion;” that Popes John XII, Benedict IX, Gregory VI, 
and John XXIII were deposed by the church. Our diffi¬ 
culty here is twofold. First, we cannot reconcile these 
historical facts with the doctrine of the infallibility of the 
Roman pontiff, to whom we are bidden to render obedience 
as the vicegerent of God and the vicar of Christ. And, 
second, we ask ourselves, suppose the next Pope should, 
like Pope Liberius, deny the divinity of our Lord and 
assure the flock of Christ that the doctrine of Arianism 
had been “ contained in the deposit of divine revelation,” as 
good Roman Catholics we should be obliged to believe this 
teaching, but at the same time we should know it to be 
contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the ancient creeds, 
and the teachings of the holy fathers of the primitive 
church. We find an insuperable difficulty in believing two 
contradictory propositions, or in comprehending how the 


36 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


dogma of infallibility is to be applied in the numerous 
cases in which different Popes have contradicted each 
other in matters of doctrine. 

We may be told, indeed, that our difficulty arises from a 
misapprehension of the dogma of papal infallibility, and 
this we will not deny. But we find that the great princes 
and doctors of the Church, the very Cardinals themselves, 
do not agree as to its scope and meaning. We observe 
that those two great Cardinals, Newman and Manning, 
held quite contrary opinions as to the extent and nature of 
the papal infallibility. Thus Cardinal Manning declared 
that the “ syllabus of 1864 was part of the supreme and 
infallible teaching of the Church; ” but Cardinal Newman 
was of opinion that it had “ no dogmatic force ” and made 
“no claim to be acknowledged as the word of the Pope.” 
If these great leaders and theologians hold such diametri¬ 
cally opposite opinions on this vital and tremendous doc¬ 
trine, what hope can plain and unlearned folk have of 
ascertaining its true meaning? It seemed no doubt to 
many a great result and achievement to have at last secured 
absolute certainty of belief by accepting the infallibility of 
the pontiff. But if, after all, they cannot tell when he 
speaks with infallibility, or how far his teaching is infalli¬ 
ble, how are they profited ? Is not certainty as far off as 
ever? They may have cried “Eureka” as they grasped at 
last the dogma of infallibility, but after all it seems they 
have grasped a shadow. They have been like men pursu¬ 
ing the rainbow. The pot of gold may indeed lie at the 



AN OPEN LETTElt TO HIS HOLINESS. 37 

rainbow’s foot, but the rainbow forever retreats and eludes 
their grasp. 

Deeply regretting that the great cause of Christian unity 
does not seem to be advanced by the proposals of the en¬ 
cyclical, which are in substance only a summons to sur¬ 
render at discretion, and praying that the time may come 
when Rome may use her great power and prestige to draw 
together the divided members of Christendom on some 
comprehensive basis of Scripture and antiquity, I am, rev¬ 
erend pontiff, with great respect, yours very truly, 
RANDOLPH H. M C KIM, 
Rector of the Church of the Epiphany. 


Washington, D. C., July 6, 1896. 






\ 

















IV. 


WAS PETER THE ROCK ? 

I undertake in the following pages to establish the cor¬ 
rectness of my statements in the foregoing “ Open Letter,” 
and to illustrate them as occasion may require. 

Let us begin with the great words of Christ, which are 
the alleged foundation of the Papacy. It has been asked 
above, “ Should we not rather interpret as St. Chrysostom 
does, and as many ancient Fathers do, On this Kock I will 
build my church, that is, on the faith of his confession?” 

In justification of this statement, let the following pas¬ 
sages be considered: 


St. Chrysostom : 


1. Zb el IHxpo$, xai im zabzrj 
zrj Ttixpa otxodoprjGw poo xvjv 
£xxXrj<y£av, zooziazi , rf t Ttiazei 
xr t <$ dpoXoyia ?. Horn. LTV, p. 
548, A. Paris, 1727. 

2. Em ZOLUZYj Tjf Tzlxpa , obx 
eiTzev im zuj IUzpio ' ooze yap in) 
z(p av^pconw, aXZ im xr,v rclaztv 
zrjv iauzoo kxxXrjfftav (pxodoprjae. 
Chrys. Tom. V, Or. 163.* 


1. “Thou art Peter, and upon 
this rock will I build my church— 
that is, the faith of his confes¬ 
sion. ” 

2. “ Upon this rock, he said 
not upon Peter: for not on the 
man but upon his faith in Him¬ 
self did He build His Church.” 


3. Contrasting the more perfect faith of Peter with that 
of Nathaniel, he says: 


Quoted by Bp. Barrow. 
39 


40 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


AXT a.TirjpTifffiivrj'z aoraj 3. “ But as if liis faith had 
7 zc<tt£cd?, zijv kxx\r)<riav been made perfect, he said he 

ecprjGev irr) u/ioAoytav oixodo- would build the Church upon his 

fxrjffetv Trjv kxetvou. Horn. xxi. confession.” 
on John i. 50, p. 120, C. 

One of my critics* labors to break the force of this inter¬ 
pretation given by the great Bishop and Orator of Con¬ 
stantinople. He quotes several passages which show this 
Father’s exalted opinion of the position and authority of 
Peter, as “ the mouth of all the apostles, the summit of 
the whole college,” and then he cries out that I have per¬ 
verted history by a “ partial citation.” 

But not all this can shake the fact which alone I alleged,, 
that St. Chrysostom interpreted the Kock to mean not 
Peter but the confession which Peter made.f In chal¬ 
lenging the interpretation given in Pope Leo’s encyclical, I 
quoted St. Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Great as sup¬ 
porting the view that the Church was not built upon Peter 
as the Rock, but upon Peter’s Confession of the Divinity 
of Christ. No matter, therefore, what the views of these 
Fathers upon Peter’s Primacy, their opinion upon the true 
interpretation of that famous passage stands. But, after 
all, what was the view of the golden-mouthed orator of 
Constantinople upon the Primacy of Peter? 

It is true he calls him “ the mouth of the apostles,” ( to. 

* Father Stafford. 

f In placing St. Chrysostom in the category of those Fathers who 
interpret the Rock as not Peter but Peter’s confession, we have the 
support of the learned Roman Catholic theologian, Rt. Rev. Dr* 
Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis. (See below.) 


WAS PETER THE ROCK? 


41 


(TTo/ia T(bv anooToXwv,) and again “ the coryphaeus of the 
apostles ” (ra>y anoaToXiov xopu<paio$). We do not deny that 
St. Peter was the leader and spokesman of the Apostolic 
College. That is a very different thing from being the 
“foundation” of the Church, or its absolute ruler, or its 
infallible head. My critic, however, alleges the following 
from St. Chrysostom : “ He placed this man Peter over the 
whole world,” and this again: “ He set over it Peter, the 
doctor of the whole world, to whom he gave the keys of 
heaven, to whose will and power he trusted all things.” 

But this same Chrysostom elsewhere styles Et. John 
“ the Pillar of the Churches throughout the world ” {6 gto- 
Xo<s zc&v xaza zrjv oixoufxivrjv ixxXrjfft(bv), and St. Paul he calls 
“the apostle of the world,” olxoup.(vri$ Ax6gzo\o$) who 
“ had the care of the whole world,” ( 6XoxXrjpou z?j$ oixaupivys 
(ppovztda £/w v). Again, he contrasts St. Paul with Michael, 
to whom was committed the care of the Jewish nation, and 
says, “ But Paul was entrusted with the earth and the sea 
and the inhabited and uninhabited parts of the world,” 
(llauAos dk yyjv, xai ftdXazzav, xai zrp> olxoupivrjv xai zijv dotXTjzov.) 

If in one place he calls Sfc. Peter “ the teacher of the 
whole world,” (rjy? olxou/Hvr)? dcddffxaXov. Horn. 88 on John, 
p. 527 B.), in another place he styles St. Paul “ the Father 
of the whole world,” (nazijp zr^ oixoup£vr)$. Be Laudib. 
Pauli. Horn. 3, [II, 490]). 

Again, in his Commentary on the Galatians, speaking of 
St. Paul’s visit to St. Peter after his conversion, he says: 


42 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Mrjokv IHrpoo dsop.svo$, pr^dk 
•ny? exstvou (piDvrjs, aXT laoTip.o<$ 
m auTw • 7 zXiov yap oudev lpu> 

t£io$. Epist. ad Gal. Cap. 1 
[x. 677]. 


“ He asked nothing of Peter, 
nor of his voice, being equal in 
honor with him—for I will not 
now say more,” implying his su¬ 
periority to Peter. 


These passages demonstrate that the lofty titles given 
by this writer to St. Peter were not intended to exalt him 
to a pinnacle of authority and power over the other 
apostles, since titles to the full as high sounding are by 
him conferred upon two other apostles. They also afford, 
inferentially, a criterion , by which we may judge of the 
value of similar rhetorical exaggerations of expression in 
the Fathers generally. 


/St. Augustine : 


1. Sermo CCXCY. In Natali 
Apost. p. 1194. Super hanc pe- 
tram sedificabo Ecclesiam meam. 
Super hanc petram eedificabo, fi- 
dem quam confiteris. Super hoc 
quoddixisti, Tu es Christus films 
Dei vim, eedificabo ecclesiam 
meam. 


1. “ Upon this rock will I build 
my church. Upon this rock will 
I build, (that is) the faith which 
thou dost confess: upon this 
which thou hast said, Thou art 
the Christ , the Son of the Living 
God , I will build my church.” 


2. Again, in his 13th Sermon (not to quote other pas¬ 
sages), Augustine says: 

‘ ‘ Thou art Peter, and on this rock which thou hast confessed—on 
this rock which thou hast known, saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of 
the living God—I will build my Church upon myself, the Son of the 
living God ; I will build it on Me and not Me on thee." 


It is true that the great Bishop of Hippo was not always 
consistent with himself in his interpretation of the passage. 


WAS PETER THE ROCK? 


43 


He says of himself, writing in his old age, “ When I was 
still a Presbyter, I wrote a book ... in which I said in a 
certain place, concerning the apostle Peter, that the Church 
is founded on him as a rock. . . . But I know that I have 
afterwards, in very many places, so expounded the Lord’s 
saying, ‘ Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my 
Church,’ as to be understood of Him whom Peter con¬ 
fessed. . . . And so Peter, named from this Bock, would 
typify the person of the Church which is built upon this 
Bock, . . . but of these two meanings let the reader choose 
the more probable.” Commenting on this the Bishop of 
Manchester says, “ The last word, then, of St. Augustine 
is this—that the Bock meant either Christ or Peter; and he 
thinks the matter so unimportant that he leaves it to each 
reader to select which of the two senses seems to him the 
more probable. The Bock is Christ or Peter; Peter’s 
Chair it cannot be. The interpretation, if he ever held it, 
is abandoned.”* 

A remarkable testimony was given as to this much dis¬ 
puted passage at the Vatican Council of 1870 by no less a 
prelate than the Boman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis, 
Bt. Bev. Dr. Kenrick, in a speech prepared for, though 
not delivered in, the Council, but nevertheless published to 
the w r orld. In it he quotes with approval a treatise which 
he says had been circulated in the Council, wherein it was 
shown that there were five distinct interpretations of St. 

♦See Charge of the Yen. Wm. M. Sinclair, D. D., Archdeacon of 
London (1896), p. 39. 


44 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY . 


Matt, xvi: 18 given by the Fathers, and draws two conclu¬ 
sions : first, that if we ought to follow the greater number 
of the Fathers, in the interpretation of this passage, then 
we are bound to hold it certain that by the Bock we ought 
to understand not Peter but the Faith professed by Peter; 
and, second , that either no argument at all, or at least no 
probable argument, can be derived in support of the 
Primacy of Peter from the words, “ Upon this Bock will I 
build my Church.” 

I give a part of the Archbishop’s speech. It is enough 
to fully justify my statement that “many other ancient 
Fathers interpret the Bock to mean not Peter but Peter’s 
confession.” It will be observed that this learned writer 
finds several of the Fathers advocating now one, now 
another of the five interpretations ; also that 44 out of 85 
Fathers examined interpret the passage as I have done, 
among them one of the Popes, Leo the Great, while only 
seventeen hold that Peter was the Bock; and finally that, 
since Boman Catholics are bound to accept no interpreta¬ 
tion of Scripture that is not supported by the unanimous 
consent of the Fathers, they cannot consistently build the 
primacy of Peter upon this passage. 

Archbishop Kenrick : 

“Invenimus quinque diversas We find five different interpre- 
interpretationes verbi ‘ Petra ’ in tations of the word “ Petra ” in 
loeoallato; ‘ quarum prima asse- the place quoted “of which the 
rit,’—verba exscribo, ‘ super Pe- first asserts” — I quote the 
trum sedificatamecclesiam,’ quam words, “ that the church is built 
sequuntur Patres septemdecim et upon Peter,” which opinion 


WAS PETER THE ROCK? 


45 


inter istos Origenes, Cyprianus, 
Hieronymus, Hilarius, Cyrillus 
Alexandrinus, Leo Magnus, Au¬ 
gustinus. Secunda interpretatio 
verba ilia ; ‘ super hanc petram 
sedificabo Ecclesiam meam ’ in- 
telligit, Ecclesiam aedificatam esse 
super omnes apostolos quos Pe¬ 
trus propter Primatum in se repre- 
sentabat. Et hanc sequuntur octo 
Patres, et inter hos Origines, Cy¬ 
prianus, Hieronymus, Augusti¬ 
nus, Theodoretus. Tertia inter¬ 
pretatio asserit verba ilia: * Super 
hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 
meam ’ intelligenda esse de fide, 
quam Confessus erat Petrus, ut, 
scilicet, haec fides, haec professio 
fidei, qua credimus Christum esse 
Filium Dei vivi, sit aeternum et 
immobile fundamentum Ecclesiae. 
Et haec interpretatio est omnium 
solemnior,quam sequuntur Patres 
doctoresque quadraginta qutuor: 
et inter istos, ex Oriente, Grego¬ 
rius Nissenus, Cyrillus Alexandri¬ 
nus, Chrysostomus, Theophylac- 
tus ; ex Occidente, Hilarius, Am- 
brosius, Leo Magnus ; ex Africa, 
Augustinus. Quarta interpretatio 
asserit, verba ilia, ‘ super haue 
petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 
meam,’—intelligenda esse de ilia 
petra, quam confessus fueret Pe¬ 
trus, i. e. Christum, ut scilicet 
Ecclesia inaedificata sit super 
Christum; et hanc interpretatio- 
nem sequuntur Patres, doctores 
que sexdecim. Quinta Patrum 


seventeen Fathers adopt, and 
among them Origen, Cyprian, 
Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexan¬ 
dria, Leo the Great, Augustine. 
The second interpretation under¬ 
stands those words “ Upon this 
rock I will build my Church,” to 
mean that He would build His 
Church upon all the apostles 
whom Peter on account of his 
primacy represented in his own 
person. And this interpretation 
is followed by eight Fathers, and 
among them by Origen, Cyprian, 
Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret. 
The third interpretation asserts 
that those words “ Upon this 
rock I will build my church,’ are 
to be understood of the faith 
which Peter had confessed, to the 
end that this faith, this profession 
of faith whereby we believe 
Christ to be the Son of the Liv¬ 
ing God, might be the eternal 
and immovable foundation of the 
church. And this interpretation 
is of all others the most weighty, 
inasmuch as fourty-four Fathers 
and doctors follow it; and among 
them, from the East, Gregory of 
Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, 
Chrysostom, Theophylact; from 
the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo 
the Great; from Africa, Augus¬ 
tine. The fourth interpretation 
asserts that those words “ Upon 
this rock I will build ray church ” 
is to be understood of that rock 
which Peter had confessed, i. e. 


46 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


interpretatio nomine petrae intel- 
ligit etiam ipsos fideles, qui cre- 
dentes Christum esse Filium Dei 
constituuntur lapides vivi, exqui- 
bus aedificatur Ecclesia.” 


Ex hoc sequitur aut nullum 
omnino argumentum in probatio- 
nem Primatus ex verbis ‘ super 
hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 
meam,’ aut nonnisi tenuiter pro- 
babile, suppiditari. ... Si ma- 
jorem numerum Patrum in hac re 
sequi debemus, tunc pro certo 
tenendum est per Petram, Fidem 
a Petro professam, non autem 
Petrum, fidem profitentem, intel- 
ligi oportere.” 

Concio Petri Kenrick archie- 
piscopi S. Ludovici. See Fried¬ 
rich, Documenta ad illus. Cone. 
Vati. Vol I, p. 195, 196. 

Obvium est ex verbis “ Tu es 
Petrus, &c.,” argumentum pe- 
remptorem in probationem etiam 
Primatus educi nequire. Id. p. 
198.* 


Christ, to the end that the church 
may be built upon Christ; and 
this interpretation sixteen Fathers 
and doctors follow. The fifth in¬ 
terpretation of the Fathers under¬ 
stands by the name of the rock 
also the faithful themselves, who 
believing Christ to be the Son of 
God are constituted the living 
stones of which the church is 
built. 


From this it follows either that 
no argument at all in proof of the 
primacy can be derived from the 
words “ Upon this rock I will 
build my Church,” or at least one 
of slender probability. ... If 
we ought in this matter to fol¬ 
low the greater number of the 
Fathers, then it must be held for 
certain that by the Kock we 
ought to understand the Faith 
professed by Peter, not Peter who 
professed the Faith.” 

Address of Peter Kenrick, arch¬ 
bishop of St. Louis, prepared for 
the Vatican Council of 1870. See 
Friedrich, Documents illustrating 
the Vatican Council, Vol. I, p. 
195, 196. 

Again : “ It is obvious that 

from the words ‘ Thou art Peter/ 
&c., a conclusive argument in 
proof of the primacy canuot be 
drawn.” Id. p. 198. 


* The Council of Trent itself declares that the “ one and firm foun¬ 
dation against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail ” is the Nicene 
Symbol of Faith. 



WAS PETER THE ROCK? 


47 


Another illustrious member of the Vatican Council, 
Bishop Strossmayer, spoke as follows to his brother bishops: 

“ St. Cyril in his 4th book on the Trinity says, ‘ I believe that by 
the rock you must understand the mishaken faith of the Apostles.’ 
St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, in his 2d book on the Trinity, says, 
‘ The rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by 
the mouth of St. Peter; ’ and in the 6th book of the Trinity he says» 
‘ It is on this rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built.’ 
‘ God,’ says St. Jerome, in the 6th book on St. Matthew, ‘ has founded 
His Church on this rock, and it is from this rock that the Apostle 
Peter has been named.’ After him St. Chrysostom says, in his 53d 
homily on St. Matthew, ‘ On this rock I will build my Church,'that 
is, on the faith of the confession.’ Now what was the confession of 
the Apostle ? Here it is, ‘ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living 
God.’ Ambrose, the holy Archbishop of Milan, on the 2d chapter of 
the Ephesians, St. Basil of Saleucia, and the Fathers of the Council 
of Chalcedon teach exactly the same thing. Of all the Doctors of 
antiquity, St. Augustine occupies one of the first places in knowledge 
and holiness. Listen, then, to what he writes in his second treatise on 
the first Epistle of St. John: ‘ What do the words mean, I will build 
my Church on this rock? On this faith, on that which said, Thou 
art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ In his 124th treatise on 
St. John, we find this most significant phrase : ‘ On this rock, which 
thou hast confessed, I will build my Church, since Christ was the 
Rock.’ The great Bishop believes so little that the Church was built 
on St. Peter, that he said to his people in his 10th Sermon, ‘ Thou 
art Peter, and on this rock (petra) which thou hast confessed,—on 
this rock which thou hast known, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son 
of the Living God,—I will build my Church,—above Myself, who am 
the Son of the Living God; I will build it on Me , and not Me on thee .’ 

‘‘ That which St. Augustine thought upon this celebrated passage, 
was the opinion of all Christendom in his time. . . . 

“ I conclude victoriously, with History, with Reason, with Logic, 
with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ 
did not confer any supremacy on Peter, and that the Bishops of Rome 
did not become sovereigns of the Church, but only by confiscating, 
one by one, all the rights of the Episcopate.” 









Y. 


PRELIMINARY PROPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO THE PAPAL 
CLAIMS. 

So much may suffice for this famous passage which has 
been made the chief, if not the sole, Scriptural foundation 
upon which the stupendous structure of the Papacy has 
been reared—it would be more exact to say by which it has 
been defended. In the light of the facts now brought for¬ 
ward, it can no longer be claimed as a support for that 
system by any candid controversialist. The principle by 
which Rome has bound herself precludes her (as Archbishop 
Kenrick points out) from relying upon these words of 
Christ in defending herself—nay, compels her to reject 
that interpretation as untrue—and if she were consistent 
with herself the words which encircle the dome of St. 
Peters— 

“ Tu ES PETRUS, ET SUPER HANC PETRAM J5DIFICABO 

Ecclesiam meam,” 

would long since have been erased. 

But suppose the case were different, and it could be 
established that Peter was the Rock on which Christ de¬ 
clared He would build His Church, would the Roman claim 
be thereby established? This conclusion is often assumed, 

but it is far indeed from being true. There are several 

49 


50 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HIS TORT. 


other propositions of the greatest importance which would 
have first to be established. Let me enumerate them: 

1. In building His Church upon Peter, Christ made him 
the supreme head and ruler of the Church, to whom all the 
rest of the Apostles and officers of the Church were to be 
subject. 

2. These powers of jurisdiction and government were 
transmitted to the successors of St. Peter. 

3. St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and the Popes are 
his successors. 

But not one of these propositions can be established 
either from Scripture or from the writings of the Fathers 
of the first four centuries. As to the first, as I have pointed 
out in the text of my Letter, no words of Christ can be 
alleged in its support. Pope Leo XIII’s statement that 
various prerogatives were conferred upon Peter alone, in 
exclusion of the rest of the Apostles, is clean contrary to 
Holy Scripture. The power of forgiving and retaining, 
the commission to make disciples of all nations, the mission 
to feed Christ’s sheep, the gift of the Holy Ghost—all these 
were conferred equally upon the other Apostles, as I have 
shown, and as the early Fathers testify. If Peter was 
singled out after the Resurrection for especial attention by 
the Lord in His instructions to the Eleven, it was because 
he, being the leader by age and by temperament, had pro¬ 
fessed peculiar fidelity, and had been most conspicuous in 
his infidelity in the hour of trial. If the Lord thrice said 
to him, “ Feed my sheep,” he also, in plain allusion to his 


PROPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO CLAIMS. 51 


triple denial, thrice demanded of him, “ Simon, son of 
Jonas, lovest thou me ? ” Now, it is further evident that if 
such powers had been conferred upon Peter there must 
have been (1) a clear statement of them—which we nowhere 
find, and (2) some evidence in the subsequent New Testa¬ 
ment history of the exercise of these powers. But (as I 
have again shown above, p. 27) there is no evidence what¬ 
ever of Peter’s having claimed or exercised such prerog¬ 
atives, whereas there is evidence of the contrary. This 
being the case, it is not strange that none of my critics 
has made any attempt to meet the Scriptural argument 
upon this point—nor, indeed, has made any allusion to it. 

As to the second proposition, viz., that these extraordi¬ 
nary powers and prerogatives were intended to pass to the 
successors of St. Peter, there is not a syllable in Holy 
Scripture that can by any ingenuity be made to support 
such a view, and I am not aware that the Roman contro¬ 
versialists attempt to bring forward any Scripture for this 
end. Certainly Pope Leo, in his Encyclical here consid¬ 
ered, does not. 

As to the third thesis, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome 
and that the Popes are his successors, there appears to be 
no historical evidence that this Apostle ever was Bishop of 
Rome. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (A. D. 180), says that 
St. Peter taught at Rome and suffered martyrdom there; 
but then he says the same thing of St. Paul, and neither 
fact establishes his episcopal jurisdiction in Rome. Ter- 
tullian’s statement that Clement was ordained at Rome by 


52 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Peter, not only fails to establish the fact that he was 
Bishop of Rome, but is itself plainly a complete mistake, 
since Clement did not become Bishop of Rome till A. D. 
90, twenty-three years after St. Peter’s death, which oc¬ 
curred A. D. 67. 

In truth, the first Bishop of Rome was not Peter, but 
Linus, as is incontestibly established by the testimony of 
Irenseus. Thus the whole theory of St. Peter’s twenty- 
five years’ Episcopate at Rome, when brought to the bar 
of historical investigation, collapses, and with it the Papal 
claim of inheritance of supreme power as his legitimate 
successors.* 

It is interesting to compare the answer made by the 
Eastern Church to Pope Leo XIII upon this point. It is 
found in the Patriarchal and Synodical Encyclical Letter 
addressed to the Metropolitans and Bishops by the Patri¬ 
arch of Constantinople and his brethren,! in the month of 
August, 1895: 

‘ ‘ When we refer back to the Fathers and to the (Ecumenical Coun¬ 
cils of the first nine centuries, we find that the Bishop of Rome was 
never recognized as the supreme authority or as the infallible head of 
the Church; on the contrary, each Bishop was the head and presi¬ 
dent of his own local church, being subject only to synodical decrees 
and to the decisions of the Church at large, which alone is infallible. 
From this general rule the Bishop of Rome was least exempt, as the 
history of the Church shows, since the only everlasting Chief and the 
immortal Head of the Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; for ‘He is 
the head of the body of the Church,’ he who hath said to his divine 

* See Archdeacon Sinclair’s Charge ut supra , pp. 33, 34. 
t Published by John & E. Bumpus, Oxford St., London. 


PROPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO CLAIMS. 53 


disciples and apostles on liis assumption into heaven, ‘ and lo, I am 
with you alway unto the end of the world.’ Peter, whom the pa¬ 
pists,—on the strength of the Apocryphal Pseudo-Clementines of the 
Second Century—have purposely imagined to be the founder of the 
Homan Church and its first Bishop,—Peter is seen in Scripture dis¬ 
cussing as an equal with his equals of the Apostolic Synod of Jerusa¬ 
lem. On another occasion he is bitterly reproached by Paul, as is 
manifest in the Epistle to the Galatians. . . . Such being the inspired 
teaching of the Apostles, as regards the foundation and the head of 
the Church of God, it is but natural that the Divine Fathers, who are 
immediately connected with Apostolic tradition, should have had and 
could have conceived no idea of an absolutistic supremacy either in the 
Apostle Peter or in the Bishops of Rome, nor could they attribute to 
the gospel text in question an interpretation wholly foreign to the 
Church, but only its true and orthodox meaning. They could not 
invent arbitrarily and of their own will a novel dogma, erecting upon 
a pretended succession to Peter an overbearing supremacy of the Ro¬ 
man Bishop. 

“ This could be even less so, considering that the Church of Rome 
was founded, not by Peter, of whose apostolic work in Rome history 
knows nothing, but mainly through the disciples of the heaven-soaring 
Apostle of the nations, Paul, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is 
clear to all men” (pp. 7-9). 




—- 




VI. 


PETER AND THE POWER OF THE KEYS. 

Referring to the power of the keys, the Papal Encyclical 
declares, “ Thus the power of St. Peter is supreme and ab¬ 
solutely independent.” And again, “ Many (prerogatives) 
were bestowed upon St. Peter apart from the Apostles,” 
among which are enumerated “the power of forgiving 
and retaining,” and “the authority to feed.” Such an as¬ 
sertion is completely overthrown by the New Testament 
record, which shows that these powers were conferred 
equally upon the other Apostles. Thus in St. John xx. £3 
we read that the Risen Lord said to the assembled 
Apostles: “ Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are re¬ 
tained.” 

As stated in the text of my letter, the Fathers assert 
equality of power and authority among the Apostles. 

For example, the illustrious Isidore , Bp. of Seville (ob. 
A. D. 636). 

Quoting Matt. xvi. 18, he proceeds: 

“ Hie ergo ligandi, solvendi- “ This man therefore first re- 
que potestatem primus accepit, ceived the power of binding and 
primus que ad fidem populum loosing, and he first led the 
virtute suae praedicationis ad- people unto faith by virtue of 
duxit, siquidem et caeteri apostoli his preaching, since the other 

55 


56 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


cum Petro pari consortio honoris 
et potestatis effect] sunt.” 

Isidori Hispalensis, De Ecc. 
Officiis II, Cap. v. p. 456 (ed. 
of 1778). 


apostles also were clothed with a 
fellowship of honor and power 
equal to that of Peter.” 


Bishop Barrow quotes the following : 


St. Cyprian: 


“ Hoc erant utique et cseteri 
apostoli quad fuit Petrus, pari 
consortio prsediti et honoris et 
potestatis.” Again: “Aposto- 
lis omnibus post resurrectionem 
suam parem potestatem tribuat.” 
Cyp. de Un. Eccl. B. p. 93. 


“ Certainly the other apostles 
were that which Peter was, en¬ 
dowed with an equal fellowship 
of honor and power.” And: 
“After his resurrection, he dis¬ 
tributes to all the apostles equal 
power.” 


St. Chrysostom: 


Jeuvbc, on oibTrjq Ixa- 
<rro 9 aTciXaoasv Gall. ii. 

8. (Of St. John) 6 ra? xAii$ 
r £%u)\> twv obpavibv. Pnef. Evan 
Joh. 


“ Showing, that each one re¬ 
ceived the same dignity.” “ He 
(St. John) hath the keys of 
Heaven.” 


He calls St. Paul iffOTipov abrw ) “ Equal in honor to him ” 
(St. Peter). 

St. Cyril: 

TUTpo<s xai Iwavvys iffunpoi “ Peter and John equal to one 
dAhrjAoi<$. another in honor.” 


Theophylact: 


El yap xpos IUrpov p.6vov 
elp^raij to duxTOJ ffot; AAAdxa) 
Ttd<n Tolg Atzo<jt6Aoi§ didorat. 
In loco. 


“Is it said to Peter alone ‘ I 
will give thee ’ ? Nay, it is given 
also to all the apostles.” 


* “ Supremacy of the Pope,” p. 93 seq. 


PETER AND THE PO WER OF THE KEYS. 


Origen : 


v A pa de Tip Ilizpio p.uvw, 8(- 
dovzat OTtb zoo xoptoo al xXetdes 
Z7j$ zcbv obpavajv j3a<rtXeta$, xa\ 
obdets £zepo$ z<bv paxaptwv 
abza$ Xrjtpezat ; it de xotvov iazt 
xat npds izipoos zo dwato <rot 
za$ xXhdas zrj$ fiaatXetas zdxv 
obpavaiv, xaj$ ob'/i xa\ Ttavza 
zdze npoetprjpiva , xa\ za im- 
<pep6\xeva ux; izpo$ Ilizpov X.eXey- 
jxiva ; Orig. on Matt. xvi. 


‘ ‘ Are the Keys of the Kingdom 
of Heaven, then, given to Peter 
only? And shall none other of 
the blessed [apostles] receive 
them ? But if the promise ‘1 
will give thee the Keys of the 
Kingdom of Heaven ’ is common 
also to the others, why are not 
also all the things spoken before 
and following after as addressed 
to Peter ? ” 


Abp. Kenrick, in his speech for the Vatican Council, 
quotes the following: 


/St. Augustine: 


Tibi dabo claves regui ccelo- 
rum, tanquam ligandi et solvendi 
solus acceperit potestatem: cum et 
illud unus pro omnibus dixerit, 
et hoc cum omnibus tanquam per¬ 
sonam generis ipsius unitatis ac¬ 
ceperit ; ideo unus pro omnibus, 
quia unitas est in omnibus.” In 
Joan Evang. cxviii, c. 4. 


“ ‘ I will give thee the keys of 
the Kingdom of Heaven,’ as if he 
alone received the power of bind¬ 
ing and loosing; since he, one 
speaking for all, made that con¬ 
fession, and so received this 
(promise) for all, as if he bore the 
person of their unity ; therefore 
one for all, because the unity is 
in all.” 


/St. Ambrose: 


Tibi inquit, dabo claves regui 
ccelorum ; et ut solvas et ligas 
. . . Quod Petro dicitur, apos- 
tolis dicitur. In Ps. xxxviii. n. 
37. 


“ To thee he says, ‘ I will give 
the keys of the Kingdom of 
Heaven, and that thou mayst 
loose and bind.’ . . . What he 
says to Peter, he says to the 
Apostles.” 


58 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Bishop Jewel quotes the following (in the Latin version) 
from— 


St. Basil: 

Omnes [pastores et doctores] “All pastors and teachers 
ex asquo et ligant, et absolvunt, equally both bind and absolve, in 
quem ad modum ille [Petrus]. the same manner as he [Peter].” 

InLibello de Vita Solitaria, cap. 

23 [II. 755]. See Jewel, Vol. II, 
p. 170. 

and this from— 

St. Jerome: 


At dices, super Petrum funda- 
tur ecclesia: licet id ipsum in 
alio loco super omnes apostolos 
fiat, et cuncti claves regni cce- 
lorum accipiant, et ex aequo super 
eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur. 
Adv. Jovinianum lib. I. [iv. pt. 
2, 168.] 

Compare— 

“ Cum dicitur Petro, ad omnes 
dicitur, Pasce oves meas.” De 
Agone Christi, 30. 

and— 

In Matt. Horn, lxxvii. p. 749 B. 
Iloipavjt to TzpofioTa poo . . . 
00 7 xpo<s l£p(a<$ tooto povov el- 
prjTat , xai xpos txaoTov 

ijpcuv T(bv xau pixpov , 'ejnzeTZMJTSu- 

pivCOV 7COI/JLVIOV. 


“But you say, the Church is 
founded upon Peter ; although in 
another place that same (act of 
founding) is done upon all the 
apostles, and all receive the keys 
of the Kingdom of Heaven, and 
equally upon them is the strength 
of the Church imposed.” 


* ‘ When it is said to Peter, it is 
said to all, ‘ Feed my sheep.’ ” 


“ Feed my sheep—this is not 
said to the hierarchy alone, but 
to each one of us to whom is en¬ 
trusted even a little flock.” 


St. Augustine: 


St. Chrysostom : 


Dr. Littledale quotes the following from Cyril of Alexan¬ 
dria : “ By this triple confession of blessed Peter, his sin, con- 


PETER AND THE POWER OF THE KEYS. 59 


sisting of a triple denial, was done away, and by the words 
of our Lord, ‘ Feed my sheep,’ a renewal, as it were, of the 
apostleship already conferred on him is understood to take 
place, removing the shame of his after fall and taking from 
him the cowardice of human frailty.” (Comm, in Joann, 
xxi.) 
































































































































. 




































































































































































































































' 
















































































































* 









































“ I CONCLUDE VICTORIOUSLY, WITH HISTORY, WITH REASON, WITH LOGIC, 
WITH GOOD SENSE, AND WITH A CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE, THAT JESUS CHRIST 
DID NOT CONFER ANY SUPREMACY ON ST. PETER, AND THAT THE BISHOPS 

of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only by 

CONFISCATING, ONE BY ONE, ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE EPISCOPATE.” 

—Bp. Strossmayer. 


vn. 

THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 

In the foregoing pages it has been shown that neither 
in Holy Scripture nor in the ancient Fathers is there as¬ 
signed to St. Peter the office of supreme head and ruler of 
the church, to whom universal jurisdiction and absolute 
power were committed by Christ. But it is not denied 
that that Apostle was the leader among the Apostles, their 
spokesman and representative, both by reason of age and 
of the ardent, active temperament he possessed, and that 
in this way he held a kind of primacy among them; the 
primacy of one who was primus inter pares. Accordingly, 
in my letter to Pope Leo I have said, “ To St. Peter, brave 
and devoted leader that he was, was given the great and 
enviable privilege of first opening the doors of the Chris¬ 
tian Church to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and to 
the Gentiles in the case of Cornelius and his friends at a 
later period.” This was the view of Tertullian, who says 
St. Peter “ did initiate the key ” (ipse clavem imbuit) by 
first preaching the Gospel in Jerusalem after the Ascen¬ 
sion. Gregory says that “ Peter is not called the Univer- 

61 


62 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


sal Apostle” (Petrus universalis apostolus non vocatur). 
And Ambrose, “ Between Peter and Paul it is uncertain 
who was placed first ” (Inter Petrum et Paulum, quis cui 
prseponatus, incertum est). 

Bishop Jewel says: 

“ St. Peter in the old Fathers is diversely called the first, the chief, 
the top, the high honour of the Apostles; and in Eusebius and St. 
Augustine, nporj-yopos and princeps apostolorum . In which last words 
of Eusebius and St. Augustine, I must do thee, good reader, to under¬ 
stand, that princeps is not always taken for a prince, or governor 
endued with power, but oftentimes for the first man, or best of a 
company.” 

In the “Apologia Ecclesise Anglicanse”—that splendid 
monument of his learning and ability—Bishop Jewel very 
tersely states the answer of the Anglican Church to the 
extravagant claims set up for St. Peter by the Roman 
theologians. 


“Apostolos, ut Cyprianus ait, 
pari omnes inter se fuisse potes- 
tate; atque hoc idem fuisse alios, 
quod Petrus fuit: omnibus ex 
aequo dictum fuisse, Pascite; 
omnibus, Ite in mundum uni- 
versum; omnibus, Docete evan- 
gelium; et ut ait Hieronymus, 
Omnes episcopos, ubicunque tan¬ 
dem sint, sive Romse, sive Eu- 
gubii, sive Constantinopolis, sive 
Rhegii, ejusdem esse meriti, ejus- 
dem sacerdotii.” Works, vol. iv. 
p. 17. 


“We hold that the Apostles, as 
Cyprian says, were all equal one 
with another in power: that to 
all alike it was said, ‘ Feed; ’ to 
all alike, ‘ Go ye into all the 
world; ’ to all alike, ‘ Teach the 
Gospel;’ and, as Jerome saith, 
wherever they may be, whether 
at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at 
Constantinople, or at Rhegium, 
they are of the same dignity, of 
the same priesthood.” 


The force of the argument from Holy Scripture against 
the claims of the Papacy is felt by many Roman Catholic 


THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 


63 


divines. Witness the following passage from the famous 
speech of the courageous and eloquent Bishop Strossmayer, 
delivered in the Vatican Council in 1870: 

‘ ‘ Penetrated with the feelings of responsibility, of which God will 
demand of me an account, I have set myself to study, with the most 
serious attention, the writings of the Old and New Testament, and 
have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make me know if 
the Holy Pontiff, who presides there, is truly the successor of St. 
Peter, Vicar of Jesus Christ, and infallible Doctor of the Church. To 
resolve this grave question, I have been obliged to ignore the present 
state of things, and to transport myself in mind, with the evangelical 
torch in my hand, to the days when there was neither Ultramon- 
tanism, nor Gallicanism, and in which the Church had for Doctors St. 
Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John—Doctors to whom no one 
can deny the divine authority without putting in doubt that which 
the Holy Bible, which is here before me, teaches us, and which the 
Council of Trent has proclaimed the rule of faith and morals. I have 
then opened these sacred pages. Well, shall I dare to say it ? I 
have found nothing, either near or far, which sanctions the opinion 
of the Ultramontanes. And still more, to my very great surprise, I find 
no question in the Apostolic days, of a Pope, successor to St. Peter 
and Vicar of Jesus Christ, no more than of Mahomet, who did not 
then exist. 

“ You, Monsignor Manning, will say that I blaspheme ; you, Mon- 
signor Pic, will say that I am mad. No, Monsignori, I do not blas¬ 
pheme, and I am not mad. Now, having read the whole New Testa¬ 
ment, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, 
that I have found no trace of the Papacy as it exists at this moment. 
. . . Reading then the sacred books with that attention of which the 
Lord has made me capable, I do not find one single chapter or one 
little verse in which Jesus Christ gave St. Peter the mastery over the 
Apostles, his fellow-workers. If Simon Son of Jonas had been what 
we believe His Holiness Pius IX to be to-day, it is wonderful that He 
had not said to him, ‘ When I shall have ascended to my Father you 
shall all obey Simon Peter as you obey Me. I establish him my Vicar 
upon earth.’ Not only is Christ silent upon this point, but so little 
does He think of giving a head to the Church that when he promises 


64 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


thrones to his Apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel He prom¬ 
ises them twelve, one for each, without saying that among these thrones 
one shall be higher than the others, which shall belong to Peter. . . . 
When Christ sent the Apostles to conquer the world, to all He gave 
equally the power to bind and to loose, and to all He gave the promise 
of the Holy Spirit. Permit me to repeat it. If He had wished to con¬ 
stitute Peter His Yicar, He would have given him the chief command 
over His Spiritual Army. . . . One thing has surprised me very much. 
Turning it over in my mind I said to myself, If Peter had been elected 
Pope would his colleagues have been permitted to send him, with St. 
John, to Samaria to announce the gospel of the Son of God? (Acts 
viii. 14.) . . . But here is another still more important fact. An 
(Ecumenical Council is assembled at Jerusalem to decide on the ques¬ 
tions which divide the faithful. Who would have called together this 
Council if St. Peter had been Pope ? St. Peter. Who would have 
presided at it ? St. Peter or his legates. Who would have formed or 
promulgated the Canons ? St. Peter. 

“Well, nothing of all this occurred. The Apostle assisted at the 
Council as all the others did, and it was not he who summed up, but 
St. James; and when the decrees were promulgated, it was in the 
name of the Apostles and the Elders and the Brethren. (Acts xv.) 
. . . Neither in the writings of St. Paul, St. John, or St. James, have 
I found a trace or germ of the Papal power. St. Luke, the historian 
of the missionary labors of the Apostles, is silent on this all-impor¬ 
tant point. The silence of these holy men, whose writings make part 
of the Canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures, has appeared to me 
burdensome and impossible if Peter had been Pope, and as unjusti¬ 
fiable as if Thiers, writing the history of Napoleon Bonaparte, had 
omitted the title of Emperor. . . . That which has surprised me 
most, and which moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence 
of St. Peter. If the Apostle had been what we proclaim him to be, 
that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on the earth, he surely would have 
known it. If he had known it, how is it that not once did he act as 
Pope ? He might have done it on the day of Pentecost when he pro¬ 
nounced his first sermon, and he did not do it; at the Council of 
Jerusalem, and he did not do it; at Antioch, and he did not do it; 
neither did he do it in the two letters directed to the Church. Can 
you imagine such a Pope, my venerable Brethren, if St. Peter 
had been the Pope ? Now, if you wish to maintain that he was the 


THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 


65 


Pope, the natural consequence arises, that he was ignorant of the 
fact. Now I ask whoever has a head to think and a mind to reflect, 
are these two suppositions possible ? 

‘‘ To return, I say, while the Apostles lived, the Church never thought 
that there could be a Pope. To maintain the contrary all the sacred 
writings must have been thrown to the flames, or entirely ignored. 
But I hear it said on all sides, Was not St. Peter at Rome ? Was he 
not crucified with his head down ? Are not the seats on which he 
taught, and the altars at which he said the mass, in the Eternal City ? 
St. Peter having been at Rome, my venerable brethren, rests only on 
tradition. But if he had been Bishop of Rome, how can you from 
that Episcopate prove his supremacy ? Scaliger, one .of the most 
learned of men, has not hesitated to say, that St. Peter’s Episcopate 
and residence at Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous legends. 
(Repeated cries, ‘ Shut his mouth, shut his mouth; make him come 
down from the pulpit!’) Venerable brethren, I am ready to be silent; 
but is it not better, in an assembly like this, to prove all things, as 
the Apostle commands, and to believe what is good? But, my ven¬ 
erable friends, we have a Dictator before whom we must prostrate 
ourselves, and be silent all, (even Pius IX,) and bow our heads. This 
Dictator is history.” 

The fact that Bishop Strossmayer subsequently submit¬ 
ted to the Vatican Decrees must detract from our admira¬ 
tion of his courage and his consistency, but cannot weaken 
the force of his testimony here given as a man of learning 
upon the questions at issue. 






\ 


“That very late invention thvt Bishops receive their jurisdic¬ 
tion from the Popes, and are, as it were, his vicars, should be 

BANISHED FROM CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS AS UNHEARD OF FOR TWELVE CEN¬ 
TURIES.”— BoesuET. 


VIII. 

THE PRIMACY ANCIENTLY CONCEDED TO THE BISHOP 

OF ROME. 

Let it be clearly understood that we concede that the 
Bishop of Rome was anciently acknowledged to hold a 
primacy of honor. Bishop Jewel thus states the Angli¬ 
can view: 

“ As for the rest, that the Bishop of Rome had an estimation and a 
credit and a prerogative before others, it is not denied. For of the 
four patriarchs, he had the first place, both in Council and out of 
Council; and therefore the greatest authority and direction of matters 
in all assemblies.” 

But two things are made abundantly clear upon investi¬ 
gation of the nature of that primacy: first, that it was 
yielded to the Bishop of Rome, not because he was sup¬ 
posed to be the successor of Sfc. Peter, but because of the 
imperial dignity of the city of Rome, as the Capital of the 
World, and, second, that this primacy was one of honor, 
rather than of power, and did not carry with it any conces¬ 
sion of universal jurisdiction or supreme authority, much 
less of Papal infallibility. Upon these two points Antiquity 

speaks with no uncertain voice. 

67 


68 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Decrees of Councils. 


1. The Council of Constantinople thus decreed (A. D. 
381): 


Tov [xiv rot KiovaravTivouTZO- 
X.sio? iniaxoizov e%£iv ra 7tp£<r(3eia 
rrj<2 ziprj? p.£za tov Trj? PidprjZ 
iniaxonov, dta to Pivat dozrjv 
viav P id prjv. (Canon III.) 


“ That the Bishop of Constan¬ 
tinople have the prerogative of 
honour next after the Bishop of 
Borne; for Constantinople is New 
Borne.” 


2. The Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), the largest of 
the ancient councils, consisting of no less than 630 fathers, 
decreed equal privileges to Constantinople with those 
hitherto enjoyed by Old Rome, at the same time declaring 
that the Primacy had by the Fathers been conceded to 
Rome, “ because it was the imperial city.” 


They said: 

u Kai yap zip dpovip zrj? izpeu- 
ftuTipapPidp.r]?, diazd ftaaileuziv 
tt]v xdXcv kxeivrjv ol naripes 
eixoro )c dnodedidxairi ra Tzpza- 
fiela' xai rip auzip axoizip xivob- 
psvoi ol ixazov izsvTTrjxovza 6eo- 
ipiXiazazoi infoxonoc, ra laa 
7 zpsfffieTa dz:iv£ipav rip Trj? via? 
'Pidprj? dyiiozdzip Opdvip , euAo- 
yw? xptvavre?, rijv fia.GiX£ia xai 
auyxXrjTip ziprjdiiaav noXiv, xa\ 
ztdv iiriov dizoXavouirav upta^iiov 
zrj npeapuzipa ftaadidi ' Pidp.y , 
xai iv zot? lxxXY](Tia<TTixdi$ oj? 
ixhvrjv peyaXbvead-ai Tzpaypam , 
deuzipav p£T ixeivTjv bizdp%ooGav. 
Canon xxviii. 


‘ ‘ For the Fathers properly gave 
the Primacy to the throne of the 
Elder Borne, because that was the 
imperial city. And the 150 most 
religious bishops, being moved 
with the same intention, gave 
equal privileges to the most holy 
throne of new Borne, judging 
with reason, that the city which 
was honored with the sovereignty 
aud senate, and which enjoyed 
equal privileges with the elder 
royal Borne, should also be mag¬ 
nified like her in ecclesiastical 
matters, being the second after 
her.” Canons of first four Gen¬ 
eral Councils. Jas. Parker and 
Co., Oxford, 1874. p. 72. 


PRIMACY ANCIENTLY CONCEDED TO ROME. 69 


Pope Leo XIII declares that this 28th Canon is 
“worthless,” because “it lacks the assent and approval 
of the Apostolic See.” But the fact remains that this 
great (Ecumenical Council was of opinion that the prece¬ 
dency enjoyed by Borne was not a divinely given preroga¬ 
tive, but a privilege conferred on her by the Council, and 
not because of her Bishop being St. Peter’s successor, but 
because Borne was the Imperial City. The Canon more¬ 
over was unanimously adopted, and has never ceased to 
be acknowledged as authoritative by the whole Eastern 
Church. And further, Pope Leo the Great acknowledged 
the orthodoxy of the Council and warmly praised its de¬ 
cisions. How, then, could so great and learned and ortho¬ 
dox a council be in ignorance of the existence of the Papal 
supremacy and of its divine origin ? 

In the Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the Holy Eastern 
Church already quoted, this Canon is quoted with the fol¬ 
lowing comment: 

‘ ‘ From this Canon it is manifest that the Bishop of Rome is only 
equal in honor to the Bishop of the Church of Constantinople, and in 
no Canon, nor in any of the Fathers, is it hinted that the Bishop of 
Rome is alone head of the Church at large, or infallible judge of the 
Bishops of the other independent and autocephalous churches, or 
successor of the Apostle Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.” 
Ut supra, p. 9. 

I call attention next to 

The Silence of the Fathers. 

A very able and learned writer makes the following as¬ 
sertion : 


70 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


“Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels 
(Matt. xvi. 18, Johnxxi. 17) not a single one applies them to the Roman 
Bishops as Peter's successes. How many Fathers have busied them¬ 
selves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we 
possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, 
and those whose interpretations are collected in Catenas—has dropped 
the faintest hint that the Primacy of Rome is the consequence of the 
commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained 
the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His church of 
the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors.”* 

The same is true of that other passage, St. Luke xxii. 
32, which the papal apologists allege in support of their 
cause. Our Lord said to Peter, foreseeing his denial and 
downfall, “ I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: 
and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” 
This they interpret to be a promise of supreme jurisdiction 
and power to Peter and his successors. But “ no single 
writer to the end of the seventh century dreamt of such an 
interpretation ; all without exception—and there are eigh¬ 
teen of them—explained it simply as a prayer of Christ 
that His apostle might not wholly succumb, and lose his 
faith entirely on his approaching trial. The first to find 
in it a promise of privileges to the Church of Rome was 
Pope Agatho in 680.” Id. p. 75. 

Let the advocates of the papal claims answer the fol¬ 
lowing questions : 

1. Why is it that St. Augustine in his controversy with 
the Donatists never brought forth this mighty weapon of 
the papal power, if there was auy such weapon then found 
* The Pope and the Council, p. 74. 


PRIMACY ANCIENTLY CONCEDED TO ROME. 71 


in the armory of the Church ? If union and communion 
with, and subjection to, the Eoman See were held then to 
be essential to Catholicity, as Pope Leo now affirms, why 
did this great writer, in treating of the Unity of the Church, 
and in arguing at length with the Donatists against their 
separation from the Church, never in all his seventy-five 
chapters say one single word upon the subject f 

2. Why did Pope Pelogius I, praising St. Augustine for 
his services in the cause of Unity, make no allusion to any 
exclusive privilege of the See of Rome, but refer rather to 
“ the divine doctrine which places the foundation of the 
Church in the Apostolical Sees” and to the fact that “they 
are schismatics who separate themselves from the com¬ 
munion of these Apostolical Sees,” viz., Rome, Alexandria, 
Antioch, Jerusalem ? 

3. Why is it that in the treatises of the Ancient Fathers 
upon the hierarchy of the Church, there is no mention 
made of the Papal Office as the highest of all ? Even as 
late as A. D. 631 4 ‘ the famous Spanish theologian Isidore, 
of Seville, describes all the grades of the hierarchy, and 
divides Bishops into four ranks,—Patriarchs, Archbishops, 
Metropolitans, and Bishops,” making no mention of the 
Pope as distinct from the Patriarchs. 

4. Why is it that St. Jerome (Ep. cxxv. 15), when en¬ 
forcing on monks the duty of submission to one head “ by 
the instinctive habits of beasts, bees, and cranes, the con¬ 
tentions of Esau and Jacob, of Romulus and Remus, the 
oneness of an emperor in his dominions, of a judge in his 


72 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


province, of a master in his house, of the pilot in a ship, of 
the general in an army, of the Bishop, the archpresbyter, 
and the archdeacon in a Church,”—in the very place where, 
on the Roman theory, we should look for the crown of the 
argument in the one universal Bishop, makes no mention 
of any such head as existing?* 

5. Why is it that the Records of the first four General 
Councils contain no decree, no canon, no recognition in any 
form of the Supremacy of the Popes of Rome ? Had it 
been recognized and accepted by the church, is it conceiva¬ 
ble that it would have left no impress upon the acts and 
proceedings of those great oecumenical assemblages ? 

6. Why did the churches of the East pay no regard 
whatever to the acts of excommunication issued (severally) 
by Innocent I and Pope Felix III in the fifth century ? 

7. Why did the General Council of the African Churches, 
A. D. 419, decree that if any one should appeal from the 
judgment of the African Bishops to Rome he should be 
excommunicated ? 

Positive Patristic Evidence. 

The famous correspondence between Cyprian, Bishop of 
Carthage, Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, and Stephen, 
Bishop of Rome, furnishes evidence incontestible that the 
Roman Bishops in that age exercised no power or juris¬ 
diction over other Bishops; in other words, that the Papacy 

* J. C. Robertson, History of Christian Church, Yol. 3, p. 436, note. 


PRIMACY ANCIENTLY CONCEDED TO ROME. 73 


had not then been established. The then Pope, in the 
middle of the 3d Century, began to put forth claims of 
jurisdiction, which were at once indignantly rejected by 
his fellow Bishops. Firmilian, writing to Cyprian about 
Stephen, says: “ I am justly indignant at this so open and 
manifest folly of Stephen, that he who boasts of the place 
of his Episcopate, and contends that he holds the succes¬ 
sion from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church 
were laid, should be doing as he does.” 

The practice of rebaptizing reclaimed heretics had been 
approved by two successive Councils at Carthage (A. D. 
255, 256). Gieseler says, “ The latter of these Councils hav¬ 
ing informed Stephen, Bishop of Rome, of their decision in 
a formal letter (Ep. Cyp. 72), received from him a haughty 
answer refusing to submit to it. This led to a violent con¬ 
troversy between Stephen and Cyprian. The former broke 
off all communion with the African Churches, but this did 
not prevent their repeating the former decision in the most 
express terms at a third Council held in Carthage (A. D. 
256). Firmilianus, Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, as¬ 
sured them (Epist. Cyp. 75) of the entire assent of the 
Churches in his province, accompanying his letter with bit¬ 
ter vituperations against Stephen, whilst Dionysius, Bishop 
of Alexandria, plainly condemns the course Stephen had 
pursued.” (Yol. 1, p. 165.) 

Mosheim, commenting upon this, says, “If any one after 
reading the language held by the Africans and the Bishops 
of Rome can still maintain that the Roman prelates in that 


74 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


age had any power or jurisdiction over other Bishops, such 
a person must either be beyond measure obstinate, or 
vehemently in love with opinions imbibed in his childhood.” 
St. Augustine, nearly two centuries later, held the Africans 
justified in rejecting the decision of Pope Stephen, for 
which opinion the great Bishop of Hippo is roundly re¬ 
buked by Bellarmine (De Eccles. i. 4). 

Archdeacon Sinclair quotes the following from a letter 
addressed by Bishop Firmilian to Pope Stephen : “ While 
you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you 
have excommunicated yourself alone from all.” And this 
from St. Cyprian’s speech at the Council of Carthage: 
“ Neither does any of us set up to be a Bishop of Bishops, 
nor by tyrannical power does any compel his colleagues to 
the necessity of obedience, since every Bishop, according 
to the allowance of his liberty aud power, has his own 
proper right of judgment and can no more be judged by 
another, than he himself can judge another.” * Ut supra y 
p. 36. 

St. Jerome. 

The only authority that can be cited among the Fathers 
of the first four centuries on behalf of the papal claims 

* The papal controversialists vainly seek to break the force of Cy¬ 
prian’s testimony above by quoting the letter of that Father to Pope 
Stephanus in the case of Marcianus, Bishop of Arles, but, as is 
pointed out by an eminent R. C. writer, Cyprian did no more than 
write to the Bishop of Rome, “ as being his brother and colleague, 
who, by reason of his propinquity, might more easily know and judge 
of the whole matter.” See the case fully discussed by Barrow, 
“ The Pope’s Supremacy,” pp. 351-353. 


PRIMACY ANCIENTLY CONCEDED TO ROME. 75 


(other than the Popes themselves) is that of this powerful 
and learned man. When a young man, he penned a letter 
to Pope Damasus (A. D. 376) in which occurs the following 
passage: “ As I follow no leader but Christ, so I communi¬ 
cate with none but your blessedness—that is, with the 
Chair of Peter. Fcr this I know is the Rock on which the 
Church is built, this the house where alone the Paschal 
Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and 
he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood pre¬ 
vails ” (Ep. xv). Commenting upon this the Bishop of 
Manchester says: “Amongst all the writings of the Fathers 
of the first four centuries this passage stands absolutely 
alone. It seems to imply that, as a heedless young man, 
St. Jerome held that none could be in the Catholic Church 
without holding communion with Rome. Much excuse, 
however, is to be made for its author. He had just come 
from Rome, and had been living in the quiet atmosphere of 
its stately and immovable orthodoxy. All at once he finds 
himself plunged at Antioch into the perplexities of theo¬ 
logical speculation and the turbulence of party strife. . . . 
Which party should he j oin ? Tormented by his doubts and 
difficulties, he determines to take part with none of them 
but to fall back on the communion of that Church in which 
he had received baptism. For him assuredly that Church 
was the true Church, and it may well have seemed to him 
in his distress that nowhere else could he find the true ark 
and house of the Paschal Lamb. If he meant more than 
this by his large and vague phrases, it is certain that later 
in life he changed his opinions.” 


76 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


In proof of this assertion it is enough to cite his language 
at a period when the Roman claims began to be put for¬ 
ward by Pope Innocent I. The practice prevailing at 
Rome had been cited in favor of an abuse, whereupon St. 
Jerome wrote: 


Et Gallia, et Brittannia, et Aph- 
rica, et Persis, et Oriens, et In¬ 
dia, et omnes barbarae nationes 
unum Christum adorant: unam 
observant regulam veritatis. Si 
authoritas qumitur , orbis major 
est urbe. Ubicunque fuerit Epis- 
copus, [siveRomae,] sive Eugubii, 
give Constantinopoli, [sive Rhe- 
gii,] sive Alexandriae, . . . 

ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est sac- 
erdotii. . . . Caeterum omnes 
apostolorum successores sunt.... 
Quid mibi profers unius nobis 
consuetudinem ?” Ad Evangelum 
[iv. pt. 2, pp. 803]. Jewel iv. p. 
381. 


“Both Gaul, and Britain, and 
Africa, and Persia, and the East, 
and India, and all barbarous na¬ 
tions, adore one Christ, observe 
one rule of truth. If you ask 
for authority , the world is greater 
than a city. Wherever there 
shall be a bishop, [whether at 
Rome,] or at Eugubium, or at 
Constantinople, [or at Rhegium], 
or at Alexandria, . . . they 

are of the same dignity, of the 
same priesthood. . . . But all 
are successors of the Apos¬ 
tles. . . . Why do you bring for¬ 
ward to me the custom of one 
city ”—(viz., Rome) ? 


The man who wrote these words cannot honestly be 
quoted as an authority for the Papacy. He asserts the 
equality of all Bishops. He refuses to admit the claims 
of one city (Rome) to dominate the Universal Church. 
And elsewhere he affirms that the Church is founded 
equally upon all the Apostles. 


The Histoey of the Fiest Six Geneeal Councils Inconsis¬ 
tent with the Roman Claims. 


Observe the following particulars: 

1. Not one of the first Six (Ecumenical Councils of 
the Church Catholic was summoned by the Pope of Rome. 


PRIMACY ANCIENTLY CONCEDED TO ROME. 77 


2. One of them, the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, 
was summoned in the face of the protest of Pope Leo I. 

3. None of them was presided over by a Pope, though in 
one case, the 2d Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553, 
the Pope, Yigilius, was in the city at the time. 4. The de¬ 
crees of the Council of Nicsea were promulgated at once 
without waiting for the confirmation of the Pope. 5. The 
5th General Council strongly censured Pope Yigilius. 
6. The 6th General Council (A. D. 680) declared Pope Hono- 
rius I a heretic, and anathematized him. (Every succes¬ 
sive Pope for hundreds of years repeated this anathema.)* 
Let any candid man say whether these six facts are con¬ 
sistent with the supposed recognition at that period, or 
down to A. D. 680, of the Papal supremacy. Contrast 
with this record the story of the Yatican Council of 1870, 
still fresh in our memory. 


Other Conciliar Acts of Similar Significance. 

1. The Churches of the East continued in Communion 
with Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus, Patri¬ 
arch of Constantinople, nothwithstanding the fact that 
Pope Innocent I had excommunicated them. 

* Father Stafford’s reply to my allegation of the heresies of some of 
the Popes is sufficiently naive. He says: “You may call Popes 
heretics, but that does not make them such.” But does the solemn 
pronouncement of a General Council “ make them such ” ? Do the 
anathemas of his successors in the Papal chair for 300 years suffice to 
declare Pope Honorius a heretic ? If Father Stafford denies this, he 
has denied the Vatican faith and is worse than a Protestant! 


78 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


2. The General Council of the African Churches de¬ 
creed excommunication against any who should appeal 
from the judgment of the African Bishops to those beyond 
the seas, namely, to Rome. (A. D. 419.) 

3. The Bishops of Africa, in council assembled, excom¬ 
municated Pope Yigilius, A. D. 548. 

4. The Council sent a letter to Pope Boniface I, repudi¬ 
ating his jurisdiction, and condemning his course as an 
unwarrantable assumption of authority. This letter bore 
the signature of St. Augustine. 

Will it be pretended, except by brazen-faced effrontery 
itself, that the Bishops, the Churches, the Councils who 
acted thus, recognized the supremacy of the Papal Chair ? 

Alleged Power of Popes to Confirm or Rescind Decrees 
of Councils. 

But his Holiness Leo XIII tells the Christian world 
in his Encyclical that “ the Popes have ever unques¬ 
tionably exercised the right of ratifying or rejecting the 
decrees of Councils.” Let us bring this statement to the 
bar of History. Note then the following facts: 1. Not 
one of the first four General Councils contain any decree, 
or canon, or recognition in any form of any such right. 

2. The decrees of the Council of Nicsea (A. D. 325), the 
most famous and momentous of them all, were promulgated 
at once without any question of Papal confirmation. 

3. The Council of Chalcedon (summoned in spite of the 
protest of the Pope) proposed to bestow, as we have seen, 


PRIMACY ANCIENTLY CONCEDED TO ROME. 79 

privileges on the Bishop of Constantinople equal to those 
enjoyed by the Bishop of Borne, whereupon the Pope’s 
legates earnestly resisted and clamored against it; but all 
this had no effect upon the Council. The decree was, with 
general concurrence, adopted and subscribed by the im¬ 
perial Commissioners and all the Bishops. 4. Pope Leo 
the Great inveighed fiercely against this decree, and used 
his utmost efforts to prevent its taking effect. But all to 
no purpose; for the Bishop of Constantinople in all the 
succeeding Councils occupied the place assigned him by 
the said decree, and the Popes were compelled finally to 
acquiesce. 5. General Councils did not hesitate to cen¬ 
sure, to rebuke, to anathematize, to depose Popes, and 
these acts of theirs became effective, certainly without the 
ratification of the Popes in question. 6. Even Provincial 
Councils did not hesitate to excommunicate the Pope, e. q ., 
Pope Yigilius by an African Council, A. D. 54S. 

What, then, is the ground in history for the statements 
of Pope Leo XIII ? This and this only: It was the 
custom of all Councils, with a view to giving added weight 
and authority to their decisions, to ask the consent thereto 
of all Catholic bishops who were absent from them; of all , 
observe, and not only of the Bishop of Borne. Thus the 
Emperor Constantine asked the assent of all bishops to the 
Nicene decrees. Thus the Council of Sardica wrote to the 
whole Episcopate : “ Do ye also, our brethren, and fellow- 
ministers, the more use diligence, as being present in spirit 
with our synod, to yield consent by your subscription, that 


80 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY . 


concord may be preserved everywhere by all the fellow- 
ministers.” Many examples of similar requests for con¬ 
firmation of the decrees of Councils could be given. It 
goes without saying that the assent and confirmatiqn of so 
eminent and powerful a bishop as the Bishop of Rome was 
most earnestly desired and was held as of very great im¬ 
portance. 

Leo XIII alleges three instances of Popes rescinding- 
the acts of Councils. But the question is not what the 
Popes assumed to do—what power they laid claim to— 
what authority they usurped ; but what rights and powers 
they were acknowledged to possess. Pope Leo the Great 
undertook to rescind the decrees of the Council of Chalce- 
don, as we have seen. He wrote of them, “ We make 
(them) void , and by the authority of the blessed Apostle 
/St. Peter , by a general determination we disannul A But 
the decrees thus disannulled by the Bishop of Rome stood 
and were carried into effect, as we have seen, and Rome 
itself was compelled to acquiesce in them. 

In further illustration of the independence of General 
Councils of the confirmation of their decrees by the Pope, 
let any one read the Letter of the Synod of Constantinople 
(A. D. 381) to the Emperor Theodosius the Great. The 
Fathers say, “ We pray therefore your clemency, that the 
decree of the Synod may be confirmed, that as you have 
honoured the Church by the letters of citation, so also 
you may set your seal to the conclusion of what has 
been decreed.” On Leo XIIPs theory this petition should 
have been presented, not to the Emperor but to the Pope. 


“ History is neither [Roman] Catholic, nor Anglican, nor Cal- 
vinistic, nor Lutheran, nor Armenian, nor Schismatic, Greek, nor 
Ultramontane. She is what she is.”— bp. strossmayer. 


IX. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY. 

The papal power was gradually developed, and it is not 
difficult to trace the principal steps of its development. 

First Step. The influence of the pseudo-Clementine Let¬ 
ters and Homilies, a forgery probably of the middle of the 
second century. These writings profess to be from the 
hand of Clemens Romanus, who writes to James after the 
death of Peter, and states that the latter shortly before his 
death appointed the writer his successor. Here we have 
the origin of the story, repeated by Tertullian, that Clem¬ 
ent was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter. The Bishop 
of Manchester is of opinion that “ the whole early persua¬ 
sion of St. Peter’s Roman Episcopate ‘ was due ’ to the ac¬ 
ceptance in the 3d and following centuries of the Clem¬ 
entine fiction as genuine history. . . . No one had any 
suspicion that the Clementine romance was a lie invented 
by a heretic. The story was accepted on all sides.” 

With this view coincides the Encyclical Letter of the 
Holy Orthodox Church of the East already referred to: 
“ Those absolutistic pretensions of Popedom were first 

manifested in the Pseudo-Clementines.” 

81 


82 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Second Step. The action of the Council of Sardica (A. D. 
343) in giving a right of appeal to the Bishop of Rome on 
the part of any Bishop who considered himself unjustly 
condemned. This led to the consolidation of power in 
the hands of the Bishop of Rome, although the decree of 
the Council was not accepted by the Churches of Africa or 
the East. 

Third Step. The decree of the Emperor Yalentinian I, 
that all ecclesiastical cases arising in churches in the Em¬ 
pire should be henceforth referred for adjudication to the 
Bishop of Rome. 

Fourth Step. The appeals provided for by the Council 
of Sardica and by the decree of Valentinian were voluntary 
appeals; but Pope Nicolas I, in the ninth century, set up 
the claim that, with or without appeal, the Bishop of Rome 
had an inherent right to review and decide all cases affect¬ 
ing Bishops. 

Fifth Step. The forged Isidorian Decretals, which pre¬ 
tended to be a series of royal orders, and letters of ancient 
bishops of Rome, represented that primitive Christianity 
recognized in the Bishops of Rome supreme authority over 
the Church at large. They became a strong buttress and 
bulwark of the vast powers now claimed by the Popes in 
the person of Nicolas I. 


"TO FEAR HISTORY IS TO OWN YOURSELF CONQUERED; AND MOREOVER, 
IF YOU MADE THE WHOLE OF THE WATERS OF THE TIBER TO PASS OVER 
IT, YOU WOULD NOT CANCEL A SINGLE PAGE."— Bp. Strossmayer. 

X. 

THE ISIDORIAN DECRETALS. 

This huge fabrication arose about the middle of the 
fiinth century in Western Gaul. It consists of a large 
number (about one hundred) of pretended decrees of 
about thirty successive Popes in the first three centuries, 
together with certain other spurious documents of Coun¬ 
cils, and had for its object the protection of Bishops 
against their Metropolitans, and against the civil author¬ 
ities, by magnifying the power of the Pope, and throwing 
it as an aegis around the persons of the Bishops. Nicolas 
I, the then Pope, was quick to avail himself of these De¬ 
cretals in support of the scheme of papal aggrandizement. 
Upon them was built the novel pretension that the decrees 
of every Council require papal confirmation, and the 
further claim that the Pope was supreme in matters of 
faith, since he was the universal Bishop, all other Bishops 
being his servants; and thus the whole system of the 
Church was revolutionized, the original equality of power 
among Bishops being abolished, and, in its stead, the des¬ 
potism of the Popes set up. “ On these Decretals were 
founded the pretensions of the Popes to universal sway in 
the Church, whilst the pretended Donatio Constantini, a 
fiction of an earlier time, but adopted into them, was 
the first step in their advance to temporal power.”* 
* Gieseler. 

83 


84 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Their consummate flower appeared two centuries later, 
when Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) declared at his 
Roman Synod, “We desire to show the world that we 
can give or take away at our will kingdoms, duchies, 
earldoms, in a word, the possessions of all men; for 
we can bind and loose.” The verdict of the Greek 
Patriarchs (already alluded to) is fully justified by his¬ 
tory : “ Those absolutistic pretensions of popedom, which 
were first manifested in the Pseudo-Clementines, were 
matured exactly at this time of Nicolas I, in the so-called 
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which are a mass of spurious 
and counterfeit royal orders and letters of ancient Bishops 
of Home, whereby, contrary to historical truth, and to the 
established government of the Church, it was purposely 
put forth that primitive Christianity accorded to the 
Bishops of Rome unbounded authority over the Church as 
a whole” (ut supra , p. 11). It remains only to add that 
the divines and scholars of the Roman Church now fully 
admit the spurious and counterfeit nature of these De¬ 
cretals—while clinging tenaciously to the principles thus 
fraudulently foisted upon the Church, and to the dogmas 
which have been built upon this foundation of wood, hay, 
and stubble,- and not upon the Rock, Jesus Christ and his 
authority.* 

* Hallam says : “ Upon these spurious Decretals was built the great 
fabric of Papal supremacy over the different national churches, 
a fabric which has stood after its foundation crumbled beneath it; 
for no one has pretended to deny, during the last two centuries, that 
the imposture is too palpable for any but the most ignorant ages to 
credit.” 


XI. 


IREN2EUS, BISHOP OF LYONS (ob. A. D. 202.) 

A passage from this writer is sometimes quoted in sup¬ 
port of the Roman claims. It is found in the third book 
of Irenseus “Against Heresies” (chapter iii), of which 
only the Latin version has come down to us, the original 
(Greek) having perished. He has been refuting the Gnostics 
by an appeal to Holy Scripture, and also to the “ tradition 
which originates from the Apostles,” which, he says, was 
committed to the Churches “ throughout the whole world.” 
He proceeds as follows: 

“ Since, however, it would be very tedious to reckon up the suc¬ 
cessions of all the churches, we do put to confusion all those who 
. . . assemble in unauthorized meetings by indicating that tradition 
derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and 
universally known Church, founded and organized at Rome by the 
two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul.” 

Then follows the sentence in which it is alleged that 
Irenseus maintained that it was “ a matter of necessity that 
every church should agree with this Church, on account of 
its pre-eminent authority.” That, however, is a mistrans¬ 
lation of his words. I give in the Latin the crucial clause, 
with a translation from a candid Roman Catholic writer of 
the whole sentence: 

“Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, propter potiorem principalitatem, necesse 
est omnem con venire ecclesiam.” “ For to this Church, on account 
of more potent principality, it is necessary that every church resort; 

85 


86 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


in which church ever by those who are on every side has been preserved 
that tradition which is from the Apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, 
vol. 1, p. 252. Quoted by Bishop Coxe. See Ante-Nicene Fathers, 
1885, vol. 1, p. 415.) 


Thus it appears that Irenaeus cites the Roman Church, 
because, since on account of its being seated at the capital 
of the world, the faithful from all parts of the world must 
needs resort thither, in it the universal tradition of the 
Apostles would best be preserved. The Roman Church, 
being the Metropolitan Church, thus caught and focalized 
the rays of testimony concerning Apostolic tradition from the 
churches all over the world. Doubtless this was true when 
Irenaeus wrote within, say, sixty or seventy-five years of the 
Apostolic Age. It would be less and less true as time 
elapsed, and ancient oral tradition became dimmed or 
adulterated. 

How far Irenaeus was from recognizing any dogma of 
Papal Infallibility may be seen from the fact that he did 
not hesitate to rebuke Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, for his 
Montanist heresy, and later to remonstrate with Victor, 
another Bishop of Rome, for disturbing the peace of the 
Church. 

Moreover Irenaeus did not recognize St. Peter as first 
Bishop of Rome. He has left us, in his 3d book against 
Heresies, Chap. 3, a list of the Bishops of Rome, which dif¬ 
fers in this vital point with the Roman list. 


Irenaeus: 

1. Linus. 

2 . Anacletus. 

3. Clement. 

4. Evaristus. 

&c. 


The Roman Almanack: 

1. Sfc. Peter. 

2. St. Linus. 

3. St. Anacletus. 

4. St. Clement. 

&c. 


XII. 


ST. CYPRIAN ON THE EQUALITY OF BISHOPS. 

But the authority of Cyprian is appealed to in behalf of 
the Roman claim that the Church is built upon Peter and 
that there can be no unity except through the Chair of 
Peter. Father Stafford in his 2d reply to my Letter to Leo 
XIII quotes at length a passage from this Father in sup¬ 
port of that position. But he has quoted, (innocently, no 
doubt,) from a vitiated and interpolated copy. “ Cyprian,” 
says the late Bishop Coxe, “ has been doctored in o/der to 
bring him into shape capable of being misinterpreted. 
But you will say, Where is the proof of such interpola¬ 
tions ? The greatly celebrated Benedictine Edition reads 
as the interpolated column does, and who would not 
credit Baluzius f Now note, Baluzius refuted these inter¬ 
polations and others; but dying (A. D. 1718) with his 
work unfinished, the completion of the task was assigned 
to a nameless monk, who confesses that he corrupted the 
work of Baluzius, or rather glories in the exploit.” Ante- 
Nicene Fathers, vol. v, p. 558. 

I give in parallel columns, first, the true rendering of the 
passage, next, the original with interpolations indicated, 
and place in a note the quotation as Father Stafford cites 
it: 

“The Lord speaks to Peter, “ Loquitur Dominus ad Petruin 
saying, ‘ I say unto thee that Ego tlbi dico , inquit, quia tu es 
thou art Peter; and upon this Petrus , & super hanc petram 
rock will I build my Church, wdiftcabo ecclesiam me am, & porta* 

87 


88 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


and the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it. And I will 
give unto thee the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven; and what¬ 
soever thou shalt bind on earth, 
shall be bound also in heaven, 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
on earth, shall be loosed in 
heaven.’ And again to the same 
he says, after his resurrection, 
‘ Feed my sheep.’ And although 
to all the apostles after his res¬ 
urrection, He gives an equal 
power and says, ‘As the Father 
hath sent Me, even so I send 
you ; receive ye the Holy Ghost; 
whosoever sins ye remit, they 
shall be remitted unto him; and 
whosoever sins ye retain, they 
shall be retained; yet, that He 
might set forth unity, He ar¬ 
ranged, by His authority, the 
origin of that unity as beginning 
from one. Assuredly the rest of 
the apostles were also the same 
as was Peter, endowed with a 
like partnership both of honour 
and power; but the beginning 
proceeds from unity. . . . Does 
he who does not hold this unity 
of the Church think that he 
holds the faith? Does he who 
strives against and resists the 
Church, trust that he is in the 
Church ? f 


inferorum non vincent earn. Et 
Ubi dabo claves regni coeloi'um ; & 
quae ligaveris super terrain , erunt 
ligata & in coslis; & qucecunque 
solveris super terrain , erunt soluta 
& in coslis. Et iterum eidem 
post resurrectionem suam dicit, 
Pasce oves meas. [Super ilium 
unum sedificat ecclesiam suam, 
& illi pascendas mandat oves 
suas.]* Et quamvis apostolis 
omnibus post resurrectionem 
suam parem potestatem tribuat 
& dicat, sicut misit me pater , & 
ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritum 
sanctum, si cujus remiseritis pec - 
cata, remittentur illi , si cujus 
tenueritis, tenebuntur , tamen ut 
unitatem manifestaret, unitatis 
ejusdem originem ab uno incipi- 
entem sua auctoritate disposuit. 
Hoc erant utique & caeteri apos- 
toli quod fuit Petrus, pari con- 
sortio praediti & honoris & potes- 
tatis, sed exordium ab unitate 
proficiscitur. . . . Hanc ecclesise 
unitatem qui non tenet, tenere 
se fidem credit? Qui ecclesiae 
renititur & resistit, [qui cathe- 
dram Petri, super quern fundata 
est ecclesia, deserit,] in ecclesia 
se esse confidit ? £ Cypriani 
opera. Parissis 1726, pp. 194-5* 


* The passages above placed in brackets are interpolations, 
t See the passage and interpolations quoted by Gieseler, Vol. I, p. 
154, note. 

X Father Stafford quotes as follows. [Upon him {Peter) alone He 


ST. CYPRIAN ON THE EQUALITY OF BISHOPS. 89 


These interpolations, so cleverly introduced, completely 
reverse the teaching of Cyprian, and make him in this pas¬ 
sage contradict his other writings, and, what is more, the 
whole tenor of his life and conduct, especially in the 
famous case of his controversy with Pope Stephen, re¬ 
ferred to above. One must scrutinize very closely quo¬ 
tations from the ancient Fathers in the pages of Roman 
Catholic controversialists. It is by no means uncommon 
to find doubtful, spurious, or forged writings of the Fathers 
quoted as genuine.* This is not surprising when one re¬ 
members the history of the Spurious Clementines and 
the forged Isidorian Decretals, both of which played such 
an important part in the development of the Papacy— 
indeed, constituted its chief support in antiquity—which 

built his Church, and ordered him to feed his sheep ], and altogether after 
his resurrection, He gave similar powers to all the Apostles. Never¬ 
theless that He might manifest unity, [He established one chair,'] and 
by His authority disposed that the origin of that unity should be de¬ 
rived from one. The other Apostles were certainly that which Peter 
was, united in an equal society of honor and power. But the begin¬ 
ning takes its course from unity. [The Primacy is given to Peter 
that the Church may be shown one and the chair one. They are all 
shepherds but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed with unanimous 
consent by all the Apostles.] Does he believe that he holds faith, who 
does not hold to this unity of the Church ? Does he believe that he 
is in the Church who withstands and resists the Church, [who deserts 
the chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded] ? St. Cyp. De. 
Un. Ec. 

N. B.—All the passages italicized and bracketed by me are interpo¬ 
lations. The first and third of these do not appear in the Paris edi¬ 
tion of 1726 from which I copy the quotation in the text above. 

♦ See illustrations of this quoted by Littedale, Plain Reasons, &c., 
pp. 130-137. 


90 


LEO XIII AT TEE BAR OF HISTORY. 


were at the time believed to be genuine, but which are 
now acknowledged to have been forgeries by all well- 
informed Roman Controversialists. One recalls also the 
French New Testament, printed at Bordeaux in 1686 (a 
copy of which can be seen in the British Museum), put 
forth with Archiepiscopal approval, in which are to be 
found such audacious alterations of Holy Scripture as the 
following: 1 Cor. iii. 15 is rendered, “ He himself shall 
be saved, yet in all cases as by the fire of Purgatory: ” 
and 1 Tim. iv. 1 is rendered, “ Now the Spirit speaketh ex¬ 
pressly that in the latter days some will separate them¬ 
selves from the Roman faith.” 

It has been pointed out that had Cyprian held the Roman 
view of the Hierarchy, he must have maintained, first , that 
the power of the keys had been given to Peter; second , that 
to the rest of the Apostles he gave an inferior and subordi¬ 
nate authority; third , that the See of Rome has inherited 
the Petrine supremacy over all other Sees and churches; 
fourth , that the Unity of the Church can only be main¬ 
tained by preserving this supremacy of the Roman See; 
and , finally, that Stephen, Bishop of Rome, was supreme 
above all other Bishops, and that, were all the Apostles but 
Peter then alive, they would be subject to him. But what 
Cyprian did actually maintain in his treatise on the Unity 
of the Church was (1) that the Apostle Peter received the 
first grant of the power of the keys, so that the origin of 
the Church was in him, but (2) that afterwards the very 
same honor and power were conferred upon the rest of the 


ST. CYPRIAN ON THE EQUALITY OF BISHOPS. 91 


Apostles; (3) tliat all Bishops, as successors of the Apos¬ 
tles, had coequal power and authority; and (4) that Ste¬ 
phen, Bishop of Rome, had no dominion over his brother 
Bishops of other Sees.* 

Cyprian’s maxim, “Ecclesia in Episcopo,” then, has no 
affinity with the maxim on which the Church of Rome stands 
to-day, “ Ecclesia in Papa ; ” but is radically and irrecon¬ 
cilably opposed to it. The Constitutional Primacy which 
he conceded to the Bishop of Rome had nothing in common 
with the Absolutism which in late ages was built up upon 
the foundation of the spurious Isidorian Decrees.! It may 
be difficult to be absolutely sure of the true reading of the 
passage cited above, but whatever the reading we must in- 

* See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v, pp. 557-8. 

t Gieseler, writing of the Ante-Nicene period, says : “ Great stress 
was laid on the perfect equality of all Bishops, and each in his own 
diocese was answerable only to God and his conscience. Nor were 
they likely to allow any peculiar authority to the Successor of Peter, 
inasmuch as they attributed to Peter no superiority over the other 
Apostles. In the West, indeed, a certain regard was paid to the 
Church of Rome as the largest, and the only one in that region 
founded by an Apostle ; but by no means were any peculiar rights con¬ 
ceded to it over the other churches. ... As all the Bishops were sup¬ 
posed to be of like dignity and power, . . . they maintained their 
common right to interfere in any case where a Bishop had transgressed 
the established rules of the Church.” (I. 153-155.) See the copious 
citations given by Gieseler in support of these conclusions. 

Cyprian uniformly addresses Pope Cornelius and Pope Stephen as 
equals, using the terms frater and collega. He does not hesitate to 
reprimand and reprove them. In the affair of the Spanish Bishops 
Basilides and Martialis (A. D. 256) in which Cyprian was called upon 
to mediate, he “ rejected the decision of the Bishop of Rome in their 
favor.” 


92 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


terpret it in the light of the known views of this Father 
elsewhere stated. Of two possible interpretations of his 
language, we must prefer that which is in harmony with, 
not that which contradicts, his general system. If Cyprian 
had written, “ The primacy is given to Peter ” (Primatus 
Petro datur), we would have to enquire what kind of pri¬ 
macy did he mean ? And the following, among many pas¬ 
sages, would suffice to show that he did not dream of such 
a primacy as Rome claims to-day: “Neither did Peter, 
whom the Lord chose to be first, and upon whom he built 
His Church, when he afterwards disputed with Paul con¬ 
cerning circumcision, claim or assume anything arrogantly 
or insolently, as to say that he held the primacy and ought 
to be obeyed by those who were new (in the faith) and by 
those who came after him.” 

(Nec Petrus, quern primum Dominus elegit, et super 
quern sedificavit ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de cir- 
cumcisione postmodum disceptaret, vindicavit sibi aliquid 
insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se prima- 
tum tenere, et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi opor- 
tere.”) Epist. 71. 


XIII. 


WITNESS OF THE GREEK CHURCH TO THE INDEPEND¬ 
ENCE OF NATIONAL CHURCHES. 

The following passage from the Encyclical already sev¬ 
eral times quoted exhibits the complete harmony of the 
Greek Church with the Anglican as to the independence 
of national churches in the early Christian centuries: 

“ XVI. Each autocephalous church, both in the East and the West, 
was, during the ages of the Seven (Ecumenical Councils, entirely in¬ 
dependent and self-governing. And as the bishops of the autoceph¬ 
alous Eastern Churches, so also those of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Ger¬ 
many, and Britain, administered their churches by means of their 
own local synods; the Bishop of Rome possessing no right of inter¬ 
ference, since he also was amenable and obedient to synodical de¬ 
cisions. But in case of weighty questions, which required the sanc¬ 
tion of the entire Church, recourse was had to an (Ecumenical Coun¬ 
cil, which alone was, and still is, the high tribunal of the Church, as 
a whole. The bishops were independent of each other and entirely 
free within their own boundaries, being subject only to synodical 
ordinances, and taking their seats in such synods as equals; and no 
one of them ever laid claim to sovereign rights over the whole 
Church. But if certain ambitious bishops of Rome raised at times 
overbearing pretensions to an absolutism foreign to the traditions of 
the Church, they were duly refuted and reprimanded. It is proved, 
therefore, inaccurate and manifestly erroneous, that which his Beati¬ 
tude Leo XIII avers in his encyclical, namely, that prior to the time 
of Photius the name of the See of Rome was holy unto all the nations 
of the Christian world, and that the East as well as the West, with 
one accord and without opposition, submitted to the Roman high 
priest, as successor of the Apostle Peter and consequently as vicar of 
Jesus Christ upon earth. 


93 


94 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


* ‘ XVII. During the nine centuries of the (Ecumenical Councils the 
Eastern Orthodox Church never recognized the unswerving preten¬ 
sions to supremacy put forward by the Bishop of Rome, nor did she 
ever submit to them, as the history of the Church testifies. The in¬ 
dependent relations between East and West are clearly and manifestly 
evident from the following brief but noteworthy sentences of Basil the 
Great, in his letter to Eusebius among the saints, bishop of Samo- 
sota: ‘ Verily, it is the nature of a haughty disposition, if indulged, 
to exceed itself in haughtiness. For if the Lord is gracious unto us, 
what need have we of other aid? But if the wrath of God continues, 
who will help us against the superciliousness of the West (those men) 
who neither know the truth nor will admit of learning it, but, having 
preconceived false suspicions, do not those things which they did be¬ 
fore in the matter of Marcellus?’ Later again, towards the close 
of the ninth century, Photius, that sacred and luminous hierarch, 
when defending the independence of the Church of Constantinople, 
foresaw the perversion of the polity of the Church in the West and 
its disposition to forsake the orthodoxy of the East, and assayed to 
avert the danger by conciliatory means at first. But the Bishop of 
Rome, Nicholas I, by intervening in the East, beyond his own province 
and contrary to the canons, and by attempting to subjugate to him¬ 
self the Church of Constantinople, brought about the first stage of 
the grievous dissension of the Churches. Those absolutistic preten¬ 
sions of popedom, which were first manifested in the Pseudo-Clemen¬ 
tines, were matured exactly at the time of Nicholas in the so-called 
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which are a mass of spurious and counter¬ 
feit royal orders and letters of ancient bishops of Rome, whereby, 
contrary to historical truth and to the established government of the 
Church, it was purposely put forth that primitive Christianity ac¬ 
corded to the bishops of Rome unbounded authority over the Church 
as a whole.” 


XIV. 


THE CHURCH OF ROME AND HOLY SCRIPTURE. 

The Church of Rome has made Tradition an authority 
co-ordinate with and equal to Holy Scripture (see the De¬ 
crees of the Council of Trent); and then she has decreed 
that Scripture shall be interpreted in accordance with 
Tradition, and has constituted the Church (i. e ., since 1870 
the Pope) the infallible interpreter of Scripture, the result 
of which process is to really reduce God’s Holy Word to a 
subordinate and secondary position, so that its teaching 
counts for little in establishing matters of faith, or in test¬ 
ing dogmatic truth. It is not surprising, therefore, to 
find that the Scriptural argument against the alleged 
Privilege of Peter and his alleged successors (see pp. 27-31 
of my Letter) has not been even alluded to by my critics. 
Yet it is decisive and unanswerable, and for all who rever¬ 
ence the sacred oracles of God ought to be an end of the 
Papal Controversy. The following passage from the pen 
of Cardinal Wiseman affords an instructive illustration of 
the attitude of the Church of Rome towards the Bible: 
“ The history in every case is simply this: that the indi¬ 
vidual, by some chance or other . . . happened to become 
possessed of the Word of God and of the Bible; that he pe¬ 
rused this Book, that he could not find in it Transubstan- 

95 


96 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


tiation; that he could not find in it Auricular Confes¬ 
sion ; that he could not find in it one word of Purgatory; 
nothing in it of worshipping images. He perhaps goes to 
the priest; he tells him that he cannot find these doctrines : 
his priest argues with him, and endeavors to convince him 
that he should shut up the Book that is leading him astray: 
he perseveres; he abandons the Communion of the Church 
of Borne—that is, as it is commonly expressed, the errors 
of that Church—and becomes a Protestant. Now in all 
that the man was a Protestant before he began his enquiry: 
he started with the principle that whatever is not in that 
Book is not correct—that is the principle of Protestantism. 
He took for granted Protestantism, therefore, before he 
began to examine the (Roman) Catholic Religion. He sets 
out with the supposition that whatever is not in the Bible 
is no part of God’s truth; he does not find certain things 
in the Bible ; he concludes, therefore, that the religion that 
holds these is not the true religion of Christ.”* 

This is a candid avowal on the part of an eminent prince 
of the church, and a noted controversialist, that neither 
Transubstantiation, nor Auricular Confession, nor Purga¬ 
tory, nor Worshipping of Images is found in the Bible. 

I wish now to invite attention very briefly to the incon¬ 
sistency of the Church of Rome in regard to the use of the 
Bible in the vernacular tongue by the lay people, using 
parallel columns to exhibit it more clearly to the eye. 

* Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of the Roman Catholic 
Church, 1836, p. 12. 


CHURCH OF ROME AND HOLT SCRIPTURE. 97 


Cardinal Gibbons: 

‘ ‘ God forbid that any of my 
readers should be tempted to 
conclude, from what I have said, 
that the Catholic Church is op¬ 
posed to the reading of the 
Scriptures. ... If you open an 
English Catholic Bible you will 
find in the preface a letter from 
Pope Pius VI, in which he 
strongly recommends the pious 
reading of the Holy Scriptures. 
A Pope’s letter is the most 
weighty authority in the Church. 
You will also find in Haydock’s 
Bible the letters of the Bishops 
of the United States in which 
they express the hope that this 
splendid edition would have a 
wide circulation among their 
flocks.” The Faith of our 
Fathers, pp. 109, 111. 


Index of Prohibited Books , 
{approved by Pius IV.) 

“ Since it is manifest by ex¬ 
perience that, if the Holy Bible 
in the vulgar tongue be suffered 
to be read everywhere without 
distinction, more evil than good 
arises, let the judgment of the 
Bishop or inquisitor be abided 
by in this respect; so that . . . 
they may grant permission to 
read translations of the Scrip¬ 
tures, made by Catholic writers, 
to those whom they understand 
to be able to receive no harm 
. . . from such reading. But 
whosoever shall presume to read 
these Bibles, or have them in 
possession without such faculty, 
shall not he capable of receiving 
absolution of their sins, unless 
they have first given up the Bibles 
to the Ordinary .” (Fourth Buie 
of the Congregation of the In¬ 
dex.) 


Clement XI, in the Bull Unigenitus (A. D. 1713), con¬ 
demned as “false” and “blasphemous” the following 
propositions: 

“ It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for all 
kinds of people, to study and learn the spirit, holiness, and mysteries 
of the Sacred Scripture.” 

“ The reading of Holy Scripture is for all.” 

“ The Lord’s Day ought to be hallowed by Christians with pious 


98 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


reading, and above all, of Holy Scripture. It is dangerous to at¬ 
tempt dissuading Christians from this reading.” 

“ To forbid Christians the reading of Holy Scripture, especially of 
the Gospel, is to forbid the use of light to the children of light, and 
make them undergo a kind of excommunication.” * 


♦Quoted by Dr. Littledale, Plain Reasons, &c., pp. 90, 91. 


XV. 


POPE GREGORY THE GREAT ON THE TITLE “UNIVERSAL 
BISHOP.” 

Following are the originals of the passages quoted from 
this Father in the Open Letter, p. 33: 

“ Tu quid Christo universalis ecclesiae capiti in extremi judicii dic- 
turus examine, qui cuneta ejus membra tibimet coneris universalis 
appelatione supponere ? Quis, rogo, in hoc tarn perverso vocabulo 
nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis angelorum legionibus 
secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatusestsingularitatis erum- 
pere, ut et nulli subesse, et solus omnibus prseesse videretur?” 
(Gregory Ep. iv. 38). 

“ Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem 
vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit, 
quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit.” (Id. lib. vi. Ep. 30.) 

In further elucidation of Pope Gregory the Great’s in¬ 
dignant condemnation of this assumption of a universal 
Episcopate residing in the Bishop of Rome and his succes¬ 
sors, I append several other passages, out of many availa¬ 
ble. He exhausts the vocabulary in his vigorous charac¬ 
terization of the obnoxious phrase, “Universal Bishop.” 
He calls it in one place nomen err oris ; in another, stul- 
tum ac superbum vocabulum ; in another, nefandum vocab- 
idum ; in yet another, scelestum vocabulum ; and, finally, 
nomen blasphemice. 

To the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, St. 
Gregory writes: 


99 


100 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


“ This name Universal was of¬ 
fered during the Council of Chal- 
cedon * to the Pontiff of the Apos¬ 
tolic See. . . . But no one of 
my predecessors ever consented 
to use so profane a title ; because 
if one is called Universal Patri¬ 
arch, the name of Patriarchs is 
taken away from the rest. But 
far be it from the mind of a Chris¬ 
tian to be willing in anywise to 
seize for himself that whereby he 
may appear in any degree what¬ 
soever to diminish the honor of 
his brethren.” 


‘ ‘ Per Sanctam Chalcedonensam 
Synodum Pontifici sedis apostol- 
icae. . . . hoc universitatis no¬ 
men oblatum est. Sed nullus 
umquam decessorum meorum hoc 
tarn profano vocabulo uti con- 
sensit: quia videlicet si unus 
Patrarcha Universalis dicitur, Pa- 
triarcharum nomen cceteris dero- 
gatur. Sed absit hoc, absit a 
Christiani mente id sibi velle 
quempiam arripere, unde fratrum 
suorum honorem imminuere ex 
quantulacumque parte videatur.” 
Gregorii Opera, Tom II. Epist. 
Lib. v. 43, p. 771. Paris, 1705. 


Again, to the Patriarch of Alexandria, he writes: 


“ You are my brother in rank, 
my father in character. I did 
not, therefore, command, but took 
pains to suggest the things which 
seemed useful. ... I said that 
you were not to write any such 
thing to me or to any one else; 
and behold in the very heading 
of the letter which you addressed 
to me, the very person who for¬ 
bade it, you took care to set that 
haughty title, calling me Univer¬ 
sal Bishop (Pope) which I beg 
your most gracious holiness not 
to do to me again. . . . For if 
your holiness calls me the Uni- 


“ Loco enim mihi fratres estis, 
moribus patres. Non ergo jussi, 
sed quae utilia visa sunt, indicare 
curavi. . . . Dixi, nec mihi vos, 
nec cuiquam alteri tale aliquid 
scribere debere; et ecce in prae- 
fatione Epistolae quam ad me ip- 
sum, qui prohibui, direxistis, su- 
perbae appellationis verbum uni- 
versalem me Papam dicentes, im- 
primere curastis. Quod peto 
dulcissima mihi Sanctitas vestra 
ultra non faciat. ... Si enim 
Universalem me Papam vestra 
Sanctitas dicit, negat se hoc esse 
quod me fatitur universum. Sed 


* Not by the Council itself, nor with its authority, but by certain 
private individuals. Father Stafford is in error in asserting the con¬ 
trary. 


GREGORY ON TITLE “UNIVERSAL BISHOP .” 101 


versal Bishop, you deny that you absit hoc.” Id. Epist. Liber viii. 

yourself are that which you con- 30, p. 919. 

fess me to be over the whole 

world. But far be such a 

thought.” 

In yet another letter of his we meet with the following: 


“As to that title of supersti¬ 
tion and pride, I have studiously 
admonished him, saying that he 
could not have peace with us un¬ 
less he corrected the haughtiness 
of the forementioned word, which 
the first apostate invented. You, 
however, ought not to say that 
that case is of no consequence, 
because if we bear this with equa¬ 
nimity we corrupt the faith of 
the Universal Church. ... If 
one bishop is called universal 
(bishop) the whole church crum¬ 
bles in ruin; if one (bishop) falls 
the whole (Episcopate) falls; but 
far from us be this folly, far from 
my ears be this levity.” 

Writing to the Emperor 
speaks of St. Peter : 

“He is not called Universal 
Apostle, yet this most holy man, 
my colleague in the priesthood, 
John [of Constantinople] aspires 
to the title Universal Bishop. I 
am compelled to cry out and say, 
O tempora, 0 mores! . . . Far 
from Christian hearts be that 
name of blasphemy, by which 


De eodem superstitioso et su- 
perbo vocabulo cum admonere 
studui, dicens, quia pacem no¬ 
biscum habere non posset, nisi 
elationem praedicti verbi corri- 
geret, quam primus apostata in- 
venit. Vos tamen eamdem cau- 
sam, nullarn esse dicere non de- 
betis; quia si hanc aequanimi- 
ter portamus, Universae Ecclesiae 
fidem corrumpimus. . . . Siunus 
Episcopus vocatur Universalis 
Universa ecclesia corruit; si unus 
universus cadit sed absit haec 
stultitia, absit haec levitas ab auri- 
bus meis. Lib. vii, Ep. 27, p. 873. 


Maurice, St. Gregory thus 

“ Universalis Apostolus non 
vocatur, et vir sanctissimus consa- 
cerdos meus Johannes vocari uni¬ 
versalis Episcopus conatur. Ex- 
clamare compellor ac dicere, 0 
tempora, 0 mores! . . . Absit a 
cordibus Christianis nomen istud 
blasphemiae, in quo omnium Sa- 
cerdotum honor adimitur, dum 


102 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


the honor of the whole priest- ab uno sibi dementer arrogatur.” 
hood is compromised while it is Id. v. 20, pp. 748, 749. 
insanely arrogated to himself by 
one.” 

Surely it is a lame and impotent explanation of the 
vehement and unqualified condemnation of the title Uni¬ 
versal Bishop by Gregory, to say, as one of my critics 
does, that it was “because it was offensive, and it was 
offensive because it was high sounding, and had been 
assumed by the Eastern patriarch out of human pride, and 
in a sense injurious to other Bishops.” 

Gregory condemned the very thing which was subse¬ 
quently consummated by Hildebrand and which is main¬ 
tained and practised by the Pope to day, the subjection of 
other Bishops to the Bishop of Borne. 

The following passage from another letter of this 
great and humble-minded Pope still further declares 
his mind upon this subject, making it incontrovertibly 
clear that his objection to the title “Universal Bishop n 
antedated the effort of John of Constantinople to arrogate 
it to himself, and lay against the title in itself, and not 
merely in its accidental association with the ambition 
of that Patriarch. Had Gregory held the modern Roman 
doctrine of the sovereignty of the Papacy, he would have 
replied (just as most certainly Pope Leo XIII would 
reply to the Archbishop of Baltimore if he were to assume 
that title), that he, Gregory, Bishop of Rome, was the 
Universal Bishop, and that John was a rebel and a usurper 
in daring to assume it. 


GREGORY ON TITLE “UNIVERSAL BISHOP 1Q3 


“It is true that for the honor 
of the blessed Prince of the Apos¬ 
tles (this title) was offered, during 
the venerable Council of Chalce- 
don, to the Roman Pontiff. But 
none of those (pontiffs) ever con¬ 
sented to use this unique title, 
lest,—while something exclusive 
were given to one, all should be 
deprived of the due honor of the 
priesthood. What is this then— 
we do not want the glory of this 
title even when offered, yet 
another presumes to seize it 
though it is not offered! ” 


Certe pro beati Apostolorum 
principis honore, per veneran- 
dam Chalcedonensem Synodum 
Romanum Pontifice oblatum est. 
Sed nullus eorum umquam hoc 
singularitas nomine uti consen- 
sit, ne dum privatum aliquid da- 
retur uni, honore debito sacerdo- 
tis privarentur universi. Quid 
est ergo, quod nos hujus vocabuli 
gloriam et oblatam non quseri- 
mus, et alter sibi hanc arripere et 
non oblatam prsesumit. Id. Lib. 
v. 20, p. 749. 



















# 




✓ 



















XYI. 


THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 


A learned Anglican writer remarks upon the fact that in 
the opinion of some present-day Roman theologians the 
Pope has never but once spoken “ with the formalities neces¬ 
sary to make his utterance ex cathedra and infallibly bind¬ 
ing, and that was when Pius IX, on Dec. 8,1854, decreed the 
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” In 
the Open Letter to Pope Leo it is stated that this doctrine 
“is explicitly or implicitly denied by several of the greatest 
of the Fathers, as St. Augustine and St. Bernard, and by 
the greatest of Roman Catholic divines, St. Thos. Aquinas, 
as well as by several of the Popes themselves.” 

I proceed to justify this statement by quotations from 
the writers named: 

St. Augustine. 


“ Etenim, ut celerius dicam, 
Maria ex Adam, mortua propter 
peccatum,(Adam mortuus propter 
peccatum) et Caro Domini ex 
Maria mortua est propter delenda 
peccata.” Sermo Secundus. De 
reliqua parte Psalm, xxxiv. 3. 


“For, to sum up in a word, 
Mary, sprung from Adam, died 
because of sin, (Adam died be¬ 
cause of sin,) and the flesh of our 
Lord sprung from Mary died in 
order to blot out sin.” 


And the following, quoted by Archdeacon Sinclair: 

“He alone being man, but remaining God, never had any sin, nor 
did he take on Him a flesh of sin, though from the flesh of sin of His 
Mother. For what flesh He thence took, He either, when taken, im- 

105 


106 LEO XIII AT TEE BAR OF HISTORY. 


mediately purified, or purified in the act of taking it.” (Bened. Ed. 
Paris 1630—p. 61.) 

St. Bernard (A. D. 1140) blames the Canons of Lyons 
for the innovation of celebrating the feast of the Concep¬ 
tion, then denies that it should be held, because “ the Con¬ 
ception was not holy, like the Nativity.” 

“ I greatly marvel that . . . some of you should have thought good 
to change this excellent hue, by introducing a new festival which the 
ritual of the Church knows not of, reason approves not, ancient tradi¬ 
tion recommends not. Are we more learned or more devout than the 
Fathers ? . . . The royal virgin needeth not false honour. . . . Be¬ 
yond all doubt, the mother of the Lord, too, was holy before she was 
born. . . . What should we think is to be added yet to these honours ? 
They say ‘ that the conception, which went before the honoured birth, 
should be honoured, because had not that preceded, this which is 
honoured had not been.’ What if another for the same reason should 
assert that festive honours should be paid to both her parents also ? ” 
Ep. 174, ad Canon. Lugd. Opp. 1, 169, seq. Quoted by Dr. Pusey, 
1st Letter to Dr. Newman, pp. 171, 174. 


St. Thomas Aquinas. 

The following passages sufficiently exhibit his doctrine 
on this subject: 


Summa, Part III. Quaes. XVI. 
Art. III. Ad primam ergo dicen- 
dum, quod Caro Yirginis con- 
cepta fuit in originali peccato: et 
ideo hos defectus contraxit. Sed 
Caro Christi naturam ex virgine 
assumpsit absque culpa. 

Id. Quaestio XXVII. Art. I. 
Utrurn beata virgo, mater Dei, 
fuerit sanctificata ante nativita- 
em ex utero. . . . 


“As to the first, then, it is to be 
said that the flesh of the Virgin 
was conceived in original sin, and 
therefore it contracted these de¬ 
fects. But the flesh of Christ 
took its nature from the Virgin 
without fault.” 

“ Whether the Blessed Virgin, 
the Mother of God, was sanctified 
before her birth from the womb. 


THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 


107 


Ad tertium dicendum, quod 
beata virgo sanctificata in utero 
a peccato originali, quantum at 
maculam personalem, non tamen 
fuit liberata a reatu quo tota na- 
tura tenebatur obnoxia, ut sci¬ 
licet non intraret in Paradisum 
nisi per Christi ostium. 

(He compares the cases of 
as parallel.) 

Id. Art. IV. “ In beata virgine 
post sanctificationem in utero, 
remansit quidem fomes peccati, 
sed ligatus ni scilicet prorumpe- 
ret in aliquem motum inordina- 
tum.” 


“As to the third it is to be said 
that the Blessed Virgin sanctified 
in the womb from original sin, as 
to personal taint, was neverthe¬ 
less not delivered from the guilt 
whereby all nature was held at¬ 
tainted, so that, indeed, she did 
not enter into Paradise save 
through the gate of Christ.” 

Jeremiah and John Baptist 

“ In the blessed virgin after 
sanctification in the womb, there 
remained a certain kindling ma¬ 
terial of sin, but restrained from 
breaking forth into any inordi¬ 
nate motion.” 


Cardinal de Turrecremata, a famous theologian, having 
been appointed by the Council of Basle to investigate the 
history of this doctrine, made report as follows: 

“ Behold, O Sacred Synod, 100 witnesses, who, being most profound 
Doctors in Divine and Canon Law, or very learned Fathers, give a most 
clear testimony . . . that the most blessed Virgin was in her concep¬ 
tion subject to original sin.” Pusey, Letter I to Dr. Newman, p. 72. 


Testimony of the Popes. 

Of the 14 Popes who are said to have pronounced 
against the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, I 
quote the following from Dr. Pusey: 

Pope Leo I. Serm. 5 de Nat. Dom. C. 5, p. 86. “Alone then among 
the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because He alone 
was born without the pollution of carnal concupiscence.” 


108 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


Pope Gelasius, against Pelagius, says: “ No one is clean from defile¬ 
ment.” p. 130. 

Gregory the Great: “He alone was born truly holy who . . . was 
not conceived by the commixture of carnal intercourse.” p. 142. 

Pope Innocent III says: “ Mary was produced in sin, but she 
brought forth without sin.” Serm. 2 “ De Festo Assump. Mariae,” 
Colon., 1552 (quoted by Archdeacon Sinclair). 

In the light of these passages it is impossible to avoid 
the dilemma of rejecting either the creed of Pius IV 
(which binds every Catholic never to take or interpret the 
Scriptures “ otherwise than according to the unanimous 
consent of the Fathers ”) or the doctrine of the Immacu¬ 
late Conception of the Blessed Virgin. 

With Pope Leo, Pope Gelasius, Pope Gregory the 
Great, and Pope Innocent III denying this doctrine, and 
Pope Pius IX affirming and defining it as an article of 
faith—it must be hard for the adherent of the doctrine of 
Papal Infallibility to know what to believe. When Infalli¬ 
bility is arrayed against Infallibility, who shall be the 
arbiter % 

It may be interesting to compare the opinion recently 
expressed by some of the highest representatives of the 
Greek Church upon this subject, in their reply to the En¬ 
cyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Beunion. Art. XIII of that 
document (already quoted) reads as follows: 

“The one Holy Catholic and Apostolical Church of the Seven 
(Ecumenical Councils has laid down the dogma of the supernatural, 
pure and immaculate incarnation of the only begotten Son and Word 
of God alone, by the Holy Ghost and through the Virgin Mary. But 
the papal church has again introduced an innovation, scarcely forty 


TEE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 


109 


years ago, having propounded the novel dogma of the immaculate 
conception of the Theotokos and ever-virgin Hilary—a dogma entirely 
unknown to the Ancient Church, and strenuously combated, in for¬ 
mer times, by the most eminent of papal theologians.”* 

* Reply of the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church of the East to 
the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Reunion. London : John & E. 
Bumpus. Oxford St. 






















































































































































. 















































































































































































“ History cannot be made over again. It is there, and will re¬ 
main, TO ALL ETERNITY, TO PROTEST ENERGETICALLY AGAINST THE DOGMA 
OF THE Papal InFALLIBILITY.”-Bp. Srtossmayer. 

“ DEUS SOLUS EST INFALLIBILIS.”— Abp. Kenrick. 


XVII. 

THE DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 

It is well known that the adoption of this dogma by the 
Vatican Council was strenuously opposed by many of the 
most illustrious and learned Prelates and Scholars of the 
Roman Communion, among others by the following : Dar- 
boy, Archbishop of Paris (afterwards martyred in the Com¬ 
mune); Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans; Rauscher, Cardinal 
Archbishop of Vienna; Schwartzenberg, Cardinal Arch¬ 
bishop of Prague; Scherr, Archbishop of Munich; Hefele, 
Bishop of Rottenburg; Strossmayer, Bishop of Bosnia; 
MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam; Conolly, Archbishop of 
Halifax; Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis; Dollinger, the 
eminent historian and theologian, and John Henry Newman. 

But no weight of learning or eloquence, or character 
could avail against the determination of the Jesuits, that 
“ aggressive and insolent faction,” as Newman called them, 
to force the dogma upon the church. The Council which 
proclaimed it was in no sense oecumenical. It was, in the 
first place, a Council of the Roman Communion alone ; and 
it was not truly representative even of that section of the 

Church Catholic, for the Council was packed with Italians 

ill 


112 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


and others whose votes could be depended on. Italy had 
276 delegates, while France, with a much larger Catholic 
population, had only 84, Germany 19, and the United States 
48. 

Neither was the Vatican Council free. Liberal Catholics 
severely censured this feature. “ More than one hundred 
Prelates of all nations signed a protest (dated Rome, March 
1, 1870) against the order of business, especially against 
the mere majority vote, and expressed the fear that in the 
end the authority of this Council might be impaired as 
wanting in truth and liberty.”* 

The Decree of Papal Infallibility was passed on the 18th 
July, 1870. It is as follows : 

“ Itque Nos traditioni a fidei Christianas exordio perceptae fideliter 
inhaerendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis Catholicae ex- 
altationem et Christianorum populorum salutem, sacro approbante 
Concilio, docemus et divinitus revelatnm dogma esse declaramus: 
ROMANUM PONTIFICEM, CUM EX CATHEDRA LOQUITUR, ID 
EST, CUM OMNIUM CHRISTIANORUM PASTORIS ET DOC- 
TORIS MUNERE F UNGENS PRO SUPREMA SUA APOSTOLIC A 
AUCTORITATE DOCTRINAM DE FIDE YEL MORIBUS AB UNI- 
VERSA ECCLESIA TENENDAM DEFINIT, PER ASSISTENTIAM 
DIVINAM, IPSI IN BEATO PETRO PROMISSAM, EA INFALLI- 
BILITATE POLLERE, QUA DIVINUS REDEMPTOR ECCLE- 
SIAM SUAM IN DEFINIENDA DOCTRINA DE FIDE VEL MORI¬ 
BUS INSTRUCTAM ESSE YOLUIT ; IDEOQUE EJUSMODI 
ROMANI PONTIFICIS DEFINITIONES EX SESE, NON AUTEM 
EX CONSENSU ECCLESIiE, IRREFORMABILES ESSE. 

“ Si quis antem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus 
avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit.”t 

♦See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, p. 144. 
t Id., p. 151. 


THE DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 113 


It is thus translated : 

“ Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received 
from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for the glory of 
God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, 
and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council 
approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely 
revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex 
cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor 
and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme 
apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith 
or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the 
Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,—is 
possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Re¬ 
deemer willed that His Church should be endowed for 
defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, 
therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irre- 
formable of themselves and not from the consent of the 
Church. But if any one—which, may God avert—presume 
to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.” 

Now, when this dogma is brought to the impartial bar 
of History, it completely breaks down. No wonder that 
John Henry Newman was so sad at heart in the anticipa¬ 
tion of its promulgation. He wrote to the Duke of 
Norfolk, “ I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to 
defend decisions which may not be difficult to my own 
private judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain 
logically in the face of historical facts.” “ Think,” he 
continues, “of the store of pontifical scandals in the his- 


114 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


tory of eighteen centuries, which have partly been poured 
forth, and partly are still to come. ... If it is God’s will 
that the Pope’s infallibility be defined, then is it God’s will 
to throw back the times and moments of that triumph 
which He has destined for His Kingdom, and I shall feel 
I have but to bow my head to his adorable, inscrutable 
Providence.” (Five years later Dr. Newman retracted this 
(confidential) letter.) 

What History has to say to this new dogma has been 
already intimated on a preceding page. In truth the whole 
weight of the preceding argument of this little volume bears 
conclusively against the truth of this novel dogma. The 
(Ecumenical Councils, the Ancient Fathers, and many of 
the Popes themselves, as well as the Holy Scriptures, stand 
forth as incorruptible witnesses against it. It has none of 
the three notes of Catholicity,—neither the semper , nor the 
ubique nor the ab omnibus. The Canon Law of the Mid¬ 
dle Ages, while placing the Pope above all secular tribunals, 
yet laid down that he could be judged and deposed for 
heresy (deprehendatur a fide devius). Even Innocent III, 
(13th Century,) spite of his boundless claims to secular 
and spiritual power, acknowledged that he might sin against 
the Faith and become subject to the judgment of the 
Church. Innocent IV expressed himself in the same sense. 
Of Boniface VIII (14th Century) it was said that he had 
a devil, because he declared that every creature must obey 
the Pope on pain of eternal damnation. And Hadrian VI, 
before he became Pope, said that it was certain the Pope 
could err even in matters of faith. 


THE DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 115 


As to concrete examples of the fallibility of the Pope, 
even when speaking ex Cathedra , scholars, Roman Catholic 
as well as Protestant, have supplied us with enough to con¬ 
vince any one whose mind is not closed.against conviction. 

Two Popes of the 3d Century, Zephyrinus and Callistus, 
were guilty of heresy in relation to the person of our Lord, 
according to the testimony of Hippolytus, saint and mar¬ 
tyr.* 

Pope Liberius (A. D. 358) (whose case has been referred 
to above) subscribed an Arian Creed and condemned Athana¬ 
sius, the great champion of the Divinity of Christ. 

Pope Zosimus gave the stamp of orthodoxy to the Pela¬ 
gian heresy, but afterwards, under pressure from St. Au¬ 
gustine, reversed his decision. 

Pope Yigilius, (538-555,) having been repudiated by the 
5th (Ecumenical Council, made his submission to the Coun¬ 
cil and confessed that he had been the tool of Satan. 

Pope Honorius I (625-638) taught ex cathedra the 
Monothelite heresy, and was excommunicated as a heretic 
by an (Ecumenical Council—universally acknowledged 
both in the East and in the West—which assembled in 
Constantinople in 680. Their anathema was repeated by 
the 7th and 8th (Ecumenical Councils. And finally the 
succeeding Popes for 300 years pronounced “ an eternal 
anathema ” on Pope Honorius, thus recognizing both the 

* See the Search-Light of St. Hyppolytus, Revell & Co., 1896, for 
vindication of the authenticity of his works. 


116 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


justice of his condemnation and also the principle that a 
general Council may condemn a Pope for heresy.* 

All attempts to escape the iron grasp of the facts of 
History in this crucial instance of the breakdown of the 
theory of Papal Infallibility have failed conspicuously. 

It seemed to many devout children of the Church an 
evil omen that “ the Episcopal votes and the Papal procla¬ 
mation of the new dogma were accompanied by flashes of 
lightning and claps of thunder from the skies, and so 
great was the darkness which spread over the Church of 
St. Peter, that the Pope could not read the decree of his 
own Infallibility without the artificial light of a candle.” 
There was an apprehension of calamities impending over 
the Papacy. “And behold the day after the proclamation of 
the dogma, Napoleon III, the political ally and supporter 
of Pius IX, unchained the furies of war, which, in a few 
weeks, swept away the Empire of France and the tem¬ 
poral throne of the infallible Pope. His own subjects for¬ 
sook him and almost unanimously voted for a new sov¬ 
ereign, whom he had excommunicated as the worst enemy 
of the Church. A German Empire arose from victorious 
battlefields, and Protestantism sprung to the political and 
military leadership of Europe. About half a dozen Prot¬ 
estant Churches have since been organized in Rome, where 
none was tolerated before, except outside the walls or in 
the house of some foreign ambassador; a branch of the 
Bible Society was established, which the Pope, in his 
♦See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, pp. 176 179 


THE DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 117 


Syllabus, denounces as a pest, and a public debate was held 
in which even the presence of Peter in Rome was called 
in question. History records no more striking example of 
swift retribution of criminal ambition.”* 

I invite attention to the following passage from the 
speech of the eloquent Bishop Strossmayer delivered in 
the Council in opposition to the dogma of Infallibility: 

“ Monsignor Dupanloup in his celebrated Observations, on this 
Council of the Vatican, has said and with reason, that if we declare 
Pius IX infallible, we must necessarily, and from natural logic, be 
obliged to hold that all his predecessors were also infallible. Well, 
then! venerable brethren, here History raises its voice with author¬ 
ity, to assure us that some Popes have erred. You may protest 
against it, or deny it as you please, but I will prove it. 

“ Pope Victor (192) first approved of Montanism, and then con¬ 
demned it. 

“ Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolator. He entered into the tem¬ 
ple of Vesta, and offered incense to the goddess. You will say that it 
was an act of weakness ; but I answer, a vicar of Jesus Christ dies, 
but does not become an apostate. 

“ Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, 
and made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from 
his exile, and reinstated in his See. 

“ Honorius (625) adhered to Monothelitism : Father Gratry has 
proved it to demonstration. 

“ Gregory I (578-590) calls any one Anti-Christ who takes the name 
of Universal Bishop ; and contrariwise, Boniface 3d (607-608) made 
the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. 

“Pascal II (1088-1099) and Eugenius 111(1145-1153) authorized 
duelling ; Julius II (1509) and Pius 4th (1560) forbade it. Eugenius 
4th (1431-1439) approved the Council of Basle, and the restitution of 
the chalice to the church of Bohemia. Pius II (1458) revoked the 
concession. Hadrian II declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius 


*Id., pp. 159-160. 


118 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


7th (1800 -1823) condemned them. Sixtus 5th (1585-1595) published 
an edition of the Bible, and by a Bull, recommended it to be read. 
Pius 7th condemned the reading of it. Clement 14th (1700-1721) abol¬ 
ished the order of the Jesuits, permitted by Paul III. Pius 7th re¬ 
established it. . . . 

“Now, do not deceive yourselves. If you decree the dogma of 
Papal Infallibility, the Protestants our adversaries, will mount in the 
breach, the more bold, that they have history on their side, whilst we 
have only our own denial against them. What can we say to them, 
when they show up all the Bishops of Borne from the days of Linus 
to his Holiness, Pius IX ? 

“ Ah ! if they had all been Pius IX, we should triumph on the whole 
line; but, alas! it is not so. (Cries of silence, silence; enough, 
enough.) Do not cry out, Monsignori! To fear history is to own 
yourself conquered; and moreover, if you made the whole of the 
waters of the Tiber to pass over it, you would not cancel a single 
page. Let me speak and I will be as short as is possible on this 
most important subject. . . . 

“ You know the history of Formosus, too well for me to add to it. 
Stephen XI made his body be exhumed, dressed in his Pontifical 
robes; he made the fingers which he used for giving the benediction, 
be cut off, and then had him thrown into the Tiber, declaring him to 
be a perjurer and illegitimate. He was then imprisoned by the peo¬ 
ple, poisoned and strangled. But look how matters were readjusted. 

“ Bomanus, successor of Stephen, and after him, John X, rehabili¬ 
tated the memory of Formosus. 

“But you will tell me these are fables, not history. Fables ! go, 
Monsignori, to the Vatican library, and read Platina, the historian of 
the Papacy, and the annals of Baronius, (A. D. 897.) These are facts, 
which for the honor of the Holy See, we should wish to ignore; but 
when it is proposed to define a dogma, which may provoke a great 
schism in our midst, the love which we bear to our venerable Mother 
Church—Catholic, Apostolic, and Bornan—ought it to impose silence 
on us ? I go on. 

“ The learned Cardinal Baronius, speaking of the Papal Court, says 
(give attention, my venerable brethren, to these words) : ‘ What did 
the Boman Church appear in those days—how infamous! Only all- 
powerful courtezans governing in Borne ! It was they who gave, ex¬ 
changed, and took Bishoprics ; and, horrible to relate, they got their 


THE DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 119 


lovers, the false Popes, put on the throne of St. Peter. ... I can 
understand how the illustrious Baronius must have blushed when he 
narrated the acts of these Roman Bishops. Speaking of John XI, 
natural son of Pope Sergius and of Morozia, he wrote these words in 
his Annals, ‘ The Holy Church, that is the Roman, has been vilely 
trampled on by such a monster. John XII, (956,) elected Pope at the 
age of 18, through the influence of courtezans, was not one bit better 
than his predecessor.’ 

‘ ‘ I grieve, my venerable brethren, to stir up so much filth. I am 
silent on Alexander YI, father and lover of Lucretia. I turn away 
from John XXII, (1316,) who denied the immortality of the soul, and 
was deposed by the holy (Ecumenical Council of Constance. 

‘ ‘ Some will maintain that this Council was only a private one. Let 
it be so ; but if you refuse any authority to it, as a logical sequence 
you must hold the nomination of Martin V (1417) as illegal. What 
then will become of the Papal succession ? Can you find the thread 
of it ? 

“ I do not speak of the schisms which have dishonored the Church. 
In these unfortunate days the See of Rome was occupied by two and 
sometimes even by three competitors. Which of these was the true 
Pope ? 

“ Resuming once more, again I say, if you decree the infallibility 
of the present Bishop of Rome, you must establish infallibility of all 
the preceding ones, without excluding any. But can you do that 
when history is there establishing, with a clearness equal to that only 
of the sun, that the Popes have erred in their teaching ? Could you 
do it, and maintain that avaricious, incestuous, murdering, simoniacal 
Popes have been Vicars of Jesus Christ? Oh! venerable brethren, to 
maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than 
Judas ; it would be to throw dirt in the face of Christ. (Cries of 
* Down from the pulpit—quick, shut the mouth of the heretic.’) My 
venerable brethren, you cry out; but will it not be more dignified to 
weigh my reasons and my proofs in the balances of the sanctuary ? 
Believe me, history cannot be made over again ; it is there, and will 
remain to all eternity, to protest energetically against the dogma of 
Papal Infallibility.” 






XVIII. 


PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AN IGNIS FATUUS. 

It has been pointed out in the “ Open Letter ” (p. 36) 
that the dogma of Infallibility holds out delusive hopes to 
those who submit to it in the expectation of thereby secur¬ 
ing absolute certainty of religious belief. In illustration 
of this statement, reference has been made to the differ¬ 
ence of opinion among even learned Koman Catholics as 
to the extent of the Pope’s Infallibility. Previous to 1870 
no man could tell where the vaunted gift of Infallibility 
resided. “It resides in the Pope,” said some of their 
divines. “ No, not in the Pope,” said others, “ but in the 
Church at large (a diffusive power or virtue).” “By no 
means,” exclaimed a third party, “it belongs to General 
Councils without the Pope.” “ You are all wrong,” said 
a fourth School; “ infallibility resides in a General Coun¬ 
cil, with the Pope at its head.” 

But now since the Vatican Council has spoken, the un¬ 
certainty is at an end, and it must be confessed by every 
good Catholic that the Pope is personally infallible when 
he speaks ex cathedra. Is there, then, peace at last,—and 
unanimity,—after so many centuries of conflict, upon the 
very first question of their whole system ? Alas, no! for 
the question now is, When does the Pope speak ex cathe¬ 
dra ? Who is to decide ? And until such decision is au- 

121 


122 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


thoritatively given, how can we be sure that we have really 
grasped the certainty that is built upon Infallibility ? 

For example, let us suppose a devout Roman Catholic 
takes up for perusal the famous Syllabus of Pius IX 
(1864). This document contains a catalogue of eighty 
errors of the age which are formally condemned by Pius 
IX. Is this, then, an ex cathedra pronouncement and 
therefore infallible? Cardinal Manning (as pointed out in 
the Open Letter) stoutly affirms that it is part of “ the 
infallible teaching ” of the Pope ; but Cardinal Newman 
supports the contrary opinion. Which is right ? Who is 
to decide ? Each man for himself ? Then, indeed, Infalli¬ 
bility rests upon private judgment —which good Roman 
Catholics have thrown away as a broken reed. Or is each 
man’s Confessor to decide for him? In that case, Infal¬ 
libility rests still upon private judgment—that of a priest 
instead of a layman. 

Meanwhile what grave issues are left suspended in mid¬ 
air for the devout son of Mother Church. If Manning was 
right, then religious and civil liberty—which American 
prelates never tire of applauding on public occasions—is a 
detestable error which, as a good Roman Catholic, he is 
bound to reject and abhor. If Newman was right, then he 
may say Amen to the panegyrics just alluded to with a good 
conscience. If Manning was right, then the separation of 
Church and State has been condemned by Infallible author¬ 
ity, and the absolute independence of the Roman hierarchy 
of all civil government infallibly asserted. If Manning was 


PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AN IGNIS FATUUS. 123 


right, then our devout Roman Catholic may not be hopeful 
concerning the eternal salvation of his non-Roman-Catholic 
friends, on pain of resisting the decision of the Infallible 
Papal Tribunal. In short, the old uncertainty as to where 
Infallibility reposed has simply given place to uncertainty 
in a new form: when is this Infallible voice heard ? And 
how may it be recognized ? On this question certainty is 
unattainable—and the Roman Catholic is no better off 
than his poor (!) Protestant neighbor, who builds his faith 
on the Infallible voice that speaks in Holy Scripture. 

In one of the popular controversial works upon which 
Roman Catholics greatly rely, (“ The Faith of our Fathers,” 
by Cardinal Gibbons,) the following argument is em¬ 
ployed, and the poor Protestant is shown that his “In¬ 
fallible Bible ” is of no use whatever without an infallible 
interpreter. I will place in a parallel column the Cardinal’s 
argument turned against his own doctrine: 


The Cakdinal to the Pkotest- 
ant : 

“Let us see, sir, whether an 
infallible Bible is sufficient for 
you. Either you are infallibly 
certain that your interpretation 
of that Bible is correct, or you 
are not. 


“If you are infallibly certain, 
then you assert for yourself, 
and, of course, for every reader 
of the Scripture, a personal in- 


The Pkotestant to the Roman 
Catholic : 

“Let us see, my friend, 
whether an Infallible Pope is 
sufficient for you. Either you 
are infallibly certain that your 
interpretation of the meaning 
and extent of the dogma of in¬ 
fallibility is correct, or you are 
not. 

‘ ‘ If you are infallibly certain, 
then you assert for yourself, and 
of course, for every Roman Cath¬ 
olic, a personal infallibility. You 


124 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


fallibility which you deny to the 
Pope, and which we claim only 
for him. You make every man 
his own Pope. 

“ If you are not infallibly cer¬ 
tain that you understand the 
true meaning of the whole 
Bible—and this is a privilege 
you do not claim—then I ask, of 
what use to you is the objective 
infallibility of the Bible, without 
an infallible Interpreter? (p. 
155 .) 


make every Roman Catholic his 
own Pope. 

‘ ‘ If you are not infallibly cer¬ 
tain that you understand the 
scope and meaning of the dogma 
of infallibility—and how can you 
make such a claim, when the 
great scholars and princes of 
the Church differ about it so 
widely—then, I ask, of what 
use to you is the dogma of in¬ 
fallibility without an infallible 
Interpreter of its scope and in¬ 
tent ? ” 


The logical dilemma is a dangerous bull, for he will 
sometimes turn and gore his own master ! 

Take another case. Suppose a devout and obedient 
member of the Roman Communion desirous of knowing 
whether the principles of liberty as embodied in that famous 
instrument, the Magna Charta, are in harmony with his 
faith and with his church. He hears on every hand in 
America words of approval and praise for free institutions, 
and naturally concludes that his church is in sympathy with 
popular liberty as embodied in the great English and 
American political instruments. But suppose he chances 
to read the history of the reign of King John, and so learns 
that Pope Innocent III sent his commissioners to England 
to declare the Magna Charta null and void and to restrain 
King John from giving it effect. Suppose he reads farther 
and finds that when Stephen Langton, the then Archbishop 


PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AN IGNIS FATUUS. 125 


of Canterbury, refused to execute this Bull, and stood forth 
as the champion of the rights and liberties of the people of 
England against the despotism of King John, the Pope 
suspended him from his archiepiscopal office, and drove 
him into exile. 

Or, suppose a mother loses her infant child. It has been 
baptized and therefore perhaps she feels confident of its 
salvation, but some one calls her attention to the positive, 
dogmatic, deliverance of Pope Innocent I and Pope Gela- 
sius I in the 5th Century, declaring that infants dying with¬ 
out receiving the Holy Communion are undoubtedly 
damned. True, the Council of Trent, with a Pope at its 
head, (A. D. 1564,) condemned and anathematized this 
monstrous doctrine: but how is she, poor woman, to tell 
which was the true definition? Both were Papal, and 
therefore both infallible, though contradictory. 

Or suppose the question be about valid Baptism. A 
dying child has been baptized by a woman, but in the name 
of Christ alone. Was that sufficient ? Pope Nicholas, in 
the ninth century, gave his decision that such a Baptism 
is valid; but Pope Pelagius, in the sixth century, had de¬ 
cided that no Baptism was valid unless administered in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. 

Or one has a dear friend, or a beloved relative, who is a 
Protestant. May he hope for the final salvation of such 
an one ? He will get contradictory answers from different 
priests, and in different countries. Often in America he 


126 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


will be encouraged to hope for it, but it has not been long 
since an eminent ecclesiastic publicly asserted the contrary. 
And one of the Popes (Boniface VIII), whose decision 
must have been infallible, declared, ex cathedra, that “ for 
every human creature it is altogether necessary to salvation 
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” 

Or the question pertains to marriage.—Is the marriage 
tie broken, if one of the two (husband or wife) becomes 
a pervert to heresy? Pope Celestine III pronounced 
the marriage tie broken in such a case. Subsequent 
Popes have given contrary decisions. Which is the true ? 

Or a man wishes to know whether he may fight a duel? It 
was authorized by Pope Pascal II and Pope Eugenius III. 
Is it therefore right ? Or must he obey the decisions of 
subsequent Popes, who have forbidden it ? 

What an ignis fatuus , then, is this dogma of the In¬ 
fallibility of the Pope, and how vain is the hope that, in 
submitting to it, men secure absolute certainty of belief 1 
No sooner had it been promulgated, than the line of 
cleavage began to develop between the “ maximizers ” like 
Ward and Manning, and the “ minimizers ” like John 
Henry Newman. This same wide difference of interpreta¬ 
tion prevails in the Roman Communion in regard to 
various doctrines and practices of their faith. 

Take one example out of many, the cultus of the Blessed 
Virgin. Here, verily, we have the maximizers and the 
minimizers —those who make a goddess of the Virgin, and 
give her the worship which is due to God alone, and those 


PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AN IGNIS FATXJUS. 127 


who only honor her, and ask her intercession, but do not 
worship her. The apologists of the Church of Rome are 
usually found among the “ minimizers.” Their contro¬ 
versial works reduce this cultus to the minimum, and in¬ 
dignantly deny that any good Roman Catholic ever pays 
Divine honours to the Blessed Virgin. That, they say, is 
a Protestant invention, or misrepresentation. They give 
douleia to the Virgin, not latreia. 

But let a candid observer take note of the popular relig¬ 
ion in Mexico, in South America, in Ireland, in Spain, and 
on the Continent generally (especially among the peasan¬ 
try), and he will find it hard to resist the conclusion that 
the Blessed Virgin is worshipped with latreia as God is 
worshipped, and that her worship has largely taken the 
place of the worship of Christ. 

But let us turn from the ignorant and superstitious mul¬ 
titude, who, it may be said, pervert and misapply the 
Church’s doctrine, and let us consult the Doctors of the¬ 
ology. In a work entitled “ Protestantism and Infidelity,” 
by Francis Xavier Weninger, D. D., “Missionary of the 
Society of Jesus,” I find the following example of the doc¬ 
trine of the minimizers. I place in a parallel column that 
of the maximizers. 


The Teaching of the Minimiz- 

EES. 

‘ ‘ Protestant misrepresentation 
is particularly directed against 
our veneration of the Blessed 
Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. 
You have been taught that we 
adore her. It is an unfounded 


The Doctkine of the Maxi¬ 
mizers. 

‘ ‘ Heart of Mary, Mother of 
God, . . . worthy of all the ven¬ 
eration of angels and men, . . . 
Be thou our help in need, our 
comfort in trouble, our strength 
in temptation . . . our aid in all 


128 


LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY . 


dangers. . . . Leave me not, my 
Mother, in my own hands, or I 
am lost. Let me but cling to 
thee. Save me, my Hope ; save 
me from Hell.”* 

“I adore you, Eternal Father; 

I adore you, Eternal Son; I adore 
you, Most Holy Spirit; I adore 
you, Most Holy Virgin, Queen of 
the Heavens, Lady and Mistress 
of the Universe.”! 

“ We have made a goddess of 
the Blessed Virgin.”! 

She is “the complement of the 
Whole Trinity.”§ 

“ Notre-Dame de Chartres, no- 
tre secours pendant la vie et k 
l’heure de notre mort.” Litanies 
de Notre-Dame de Chartres(1885). 

As regards the hollowness of the alleged unity and har¬ 
mony of the Eoman Communion, no better illustration could 
be given than is found in the picture of the life of the Ho¬ 
man hierarchy in England, so vividly drawn by Father Pur¬ 
cell in his life of Cardinal Manning. It is a tissue of contro¬ 
versies and jealousies, of mining and countermining, be¬ 
tween the different parties in the Eoman Communion. The 
members of the hierarchy are seen in continual conflict and 
intrigue. They agree neither in opinions nor in policies,— 

♦From the “Baccolta,” a collection of Prayers indulgenced by the 
Pope. 

t From a Prayer published under license at Borne in 1825. 

t Bp. Strossmayer, speech in the Vatican Council. 

§ Salazar. 


calumny like the rest. Our doc¬ 
trine is to-day what it was in the 
beginning of Christianity, and 
has been in all ages since. We 
teach to-day what St. Epipha- 
nius taught in opposition to the 
heretics of the Fourth Century, 
‘ We honor Mary; but the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost alone we 
adore.’ 


PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AN IGNIS FAT BUS. 129 


and first one, then another, of the Bishops hies him to Rome, 
hoping to undermine the influence and credit of his brother 
prelate with the Holy Father. It is a mournful spectacle 
of the absence of “ the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace.” Father Purcell remarks that “ second only to his 
belief in the Infallibility of the Pope . . . was Manning’s 
belief in the duty of keeping up at every hazard the ap¬ 
pearance of unity of opinio?i among Catholics .” But the 
intestine strife could not be wholly concealed, and this re¬ 
markable book has drawn aside the veil and shown us the 
bitterness and divisions and mutual distrust that prevail 
in the Roman Communion. In a letter to Mgr. Talbot, 
Manning wrote, in 1860, “ Thank God the Protestants do 
not know that half our time and strength is wasted in contests 
mterdomesticos jideiF (Life, p. 101.) So bitter was the 
strife that Manning and his friend did not hesitate, in their 
confidential correspondence, to speak of the great Newman 
as “ the most dangerous man in England,” and to express 
alarm at the danger of “ an English Catholicism.” Cardi¬ 
nal Manning felt himself and his party of Ultramontanes far 
more widely separated from Newman and his “English 
Catholics” than these latter were from Dr. Pusey. “Be¬ 
tween us and them,” he writes to his confidential friend, 
Talbot, “ there is a far greater distance than between them 
and Dr. Pusey’s book.” 

This story of division and conflict finds its counter¬ 
part in the annals of the Roman Church in the United 
States a generation later. The secret history of the inter- 


130 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY . 


necine strife which is still going on in the bosom of the 
Roman Catholic Communion in America has not yet been 
revealed; but enough has transpired from time to time, as 
for example in connection with the recent removal of the 
accomplished Rector of their University at Washington, 
Dr. Keane, to show that the old feud between the Ultra- 
montanes and the Liberals is not healed. 

So vain is the boast of unity of Spirit and identity of 
belief among Roman Catholics. Behind the veil they are 
as far from unity, and from oneness of doctrine, as their 
Protestant fellow-Christians. The Vatican decree has not 
secured solidarity of belief or of policy. 


XIX. 


CONCLUSION. 

The task which I set myself in the preparation of this 
little volume is done. The Venerable Pontiff in his Encyc¬ 
lical appealed to History,—sacred and ecclesiastical,—in 
support of the tremendous claims which, as Infallible 
Pope, he makes upon the whole Christian world. We 
have willingly taken the great controversy before that 
august tribunal; and we have obtained a verdict against 
the vast pretensions of the Papacy. Inspired History 
pronounces against them. The History of the early Coun¬ 
cils of the Catholic Church pronounces against them. 
The History of the ancient Fathers (their lives and their 
writings) pronounces against them. “History cannot be 
made over again. It is there, and will remain to all eter¬ 
nity, to protest energetically against the dogma of Papal 
Infallibility.” 

It only remains to add in conclusion that no word in the 
preceding pages has been penned in bitterness or in un¬ 
charitableness. We respect the sincerity of our Eoman 
Catholic brethren, we acknowledge the piety and devotion 
that shine in the lives of great numbers of them. We 
recognize the vast services they are rendering to mankind 
in many ways; and we fervently wish that we might be 

co-laborers for the Kingdom of God and of righteousness 

131 


132 LEO XIII AT THE BAR OF HISTORY. 


rather than antagonists—fellow-soldiers under the banner 
of the Cross against ungodliness, infidelity, and vice in this 
great Republic, rather than opponents. 

But when an ecclesiastical absolutism like the Papacy is 
set up, and we are called upon to surrender our liberties 
and our rights in the Kingdom of God, and to repudiate 
the heritage of Apostolic truth and order which we have 
received from our fathers and which came to them as an 
heirloom from primitive antiquity, our loyalty to the King 
of Kings demands that we should expose the hollowness of 
these pretensions in the impartial light of History, and 
unveil the absurdities, the inconsistencies, and the self- 
contradictions which are inseparably bound up with the 
dogma of Papal Infallibility, and Papal Dominion over the 
faith of the Church. It is in this spirit, and under this 
high sense of duty to the Great Head of the Church, that 
I have written. At His feet I lay the fruit of my labor, 
and pray that He may accept the offering and use it for 
the enlightenment of His children. 


4 



















^ * 

; 

O 

r O. ® • * * «*> 


- *Os A^" *■ 

’ ,<? ♦ 

!* ^ V 




<* + 'T.«' <<y 

^ rt v .u. 



.0' V~-‘V '«♦'••'••* *° 

>- .0^ * * • O-r V »L^» c> <9 V *> 

A .*» v <? 5j • a A ^ *Ta A *fr *■ 

% t * .-^fe; ***** •" , ® > “: V* ’ 

S^V • 


« • O. 



- A-* , 

^ • 



v <» *'7vT* ,G* ^ '«•*'■ VV <“. ' •^ T 

* <= -§§W^. ,, ‘» ^ a < j&mly!/?? * <*»- .-&• « 4 

o > 


**0* 


♦*0< 




„ «> ^ *. 
• • “* ^ 
v N 


„° ^°* 7 ^ <y 

-»* rA ^*4"\y a} °o 

® - ® *0 V * * ’ 

> V v vL^L% C' «0 V **••* *> V »1VL% 1 

.•»& \/ #&• V* { 

/\ : J5# ** v % 'SK’ /\ • 

^•..%'°*‘> .•■•*V'’*V •-*♦ V°‘‘ / 

° <T v C; /-'*»»- * ° 

: *•*■ 6^ .' 

; i° -v -■ • w _, . _ 

*-zr-''j? V ‘^-'\/ ‘V^*/ ^ 




^o V* 



?> 0 -V 





* *Kr <$> 

vP <3 • 




' • • * ^ 


A* ^ " 

+ o 0 ' 

^ •v^sSlV- ^ 


O v w 


••/ V^'/ \'- 

^ ^ A A »A t^6t A> o ^ 



k A V ^ - 

. 8 »V ^ ^ • 

° • * * aA 

a 4, .a;°% ^ 





Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Dec. 2005 


PreservationTechnologies 


<*> 


A WORLD LEADER IR PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 


* A*** 


* 

» ■?- 


A .0' <* 

* ^ (0* .•^4*. 

_KSX\W»ii ut •y' ♦ S&fll//SJL- — 


"b v 


^ 6 * 


> 


• - 0 AT 

V a? *:& . * * * 


> * <V-* -* 


* ^ 


V .*' 


7 • cfi ^J/V o \ 

* 4? s^ t 0*1 

» -o. »• A ^,.«* Sy **•* ^ < 

c 0 * o *<j> (0^ . V » « 4 ^b 6 ♦ 




» * o 


■‘-o 

, A *. 

, * <y c\ *- 



°* 

o V 




* <? * 

« ; 

• # °iw ° 

** .v ^ • 

, *'Tr« % <ci 
V .^. * 

^ c° ** 

. 'P, A K * ^ 

. +* 0 

• o. 

a» * 

^ °%> *®To° f o 

s * •' * o, <<y 

* 0 ’ * 


4 V *T* 

V S 


.* >° ^ 

... •* A o° V‘*TT7-’ 

.o v • »••» > i 

«» y .“aVa^ **- 




:> # "o. i '* A **.,•* «Cv c 

<$> c ® * • ♦ <s>* cr * • fc * • ♦ 

°o ^ V , C 


■ x o V* .° 


i0 v. 



^ *■'•*•• p .,. -♦ 

dobbs bros. *' «!_ „ o-i ' - c o 



* *■“ - & 

**•<’•’ , •--^. 

v ^ 

o A ♦ 

» A b °o 

' -0“ ^ A ^ ''..S' A 

<0' o * o ^ . fy « *■ 1 * «* 

°o .° r ^ v % ^ C° 

j u ™*"ESSiM *j0l//%> ' v .V c* 

FEB 82 :i^: | 4 . : _ 

v v- v*|. * "-zy/j i)?& * u,' _ * 

^ i * o ’* o^ ^ * * * * * 4 * & C ht °^~ 0 ° 

^pla. 4 '»-° ^ .V ,.., 

IK o .<y *'•<>' > V 





-r<> 






























































